# The Dark Room



## Overread

Welcome to the Dark Room - well its not really that dark, I just forgot to turn the lights on  - but there is a dark room for developing pics just through that door!
*turns the lights on*
Well anyway as we have several budding photographers on the site I think its about time we got a place away from the TR and let the others be a peace from out photographic interrutions 

so here is the dark room!

usful info ( well for those starting out at least) Digital Photography Tutorials


----------



## Erin99

Oh, I did not see this thread because I've been browsing my control panel! Doh.

So can we talk about cameras in here, too? I've found three I like!


----------



## Overread

cameras, pictures, websites, phototrips - tis for all things camery!


----------



## Erin99

Oh, yay! I get to spam up this thread with cameras! 


As I said, I found three I like best, not counting the Fuji Finepix, which isn't an SLR, or the Olympus 18x zoom, which isn't digital either...

Olympus E-510 Digital SLR with 14-42mm Lens (N2930492) - Warehouse Express
Amazon.co.uk: Nikon D40X Digital SLR Camera With 18-55mm Lens - Black (10.2MP): Nikon: Electronics & Photo
Amazon.co.uk: Canon EOS 400D Digital SLR Camera (incl. EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens Kit): Electronics & Photo

Of course, that's _if_ I decide to spend that much money on one... 'Tis rather expensive!


----------



## Overread

hmm from what I know (and its mostly collected views of others) the cannon and nikon are at the top of that price braket - as to which is better its more a case of personal prefrence to actual power ( some like cannon and others like nikon). Both are good solid camerasl


----------



## Erin99

My dad says Nikon is one of the best for overall quality - yet he says, if he had the choice, he'd buy the Olympus! Apparently it's a fabulous camera, has some handy features, and will still fit the decent Sigma lenses.

Plus, I'm already used to Olympus...

Gah! I don't know! If only I was rich - I'd buy them all! 

I like the deals best, the ones that sell the body _and_ two lenses.


----------



## Overread

no cannon love!
only kidding! well if you are used to olympus then you will be able to pick up the camera quicker - and thus start off better than at scratch with a new camera


----------



## Erin99

Actually, Canon was my _first_ choice - but my dad is showing me the benefits of the others... and now I'm torn!!!

Life - 'tis full of difficult choices!


----------



## Overread

DICE!

1 and 2 its canon
3 and 4 its nikon
5 and 6 its olympus


----------



## Rosemary

I just have a Nikon SLR - although it does take great pics.  Prior to that I had an rather unknown brand of camera - Pratika.  Surprisingly enough it was so easy to use, I even got the depth of field right on that old camera and I also had some lovely macro lens sets, so that all of our tiniest native orchids came out very well. Lying on the ground amongst the ants nests made it more interesting. 

I'm toying with the idea of going digital.  I'll probably need a tripod as my hands are too shaky for close up pics these days.   I already have a printer with a docking station, so that I can download them to my laptop.  My only problem being, I don't really understand much about pixels.


----------



## Overread

pixels with cameras is a marketing ploy (I only learnt about this recently myself). The number of pixels is not an indecation of quality of shot, but of the size that you can shoot to - I forget which numbers equate to what size, but the most pixels the larger the picture you can make at high quality. 
That said - digi is easier to pick up as you can play around with it for aaages take 100s of shots under different settings and it costs you nothing but time - so in that respect its easier -- and if you understand normal camera info then with digital its the same -- the only differenve being post production using programs like photoshop


----------



## Rosemary

Overread said:


> pixels with cameras is a marketing ploy (I only learnt about this recently myself). The number of pixels is not an indecation of quality of shot, but of the size that you can shoot to - I forget which numbers equate to what size, but the most pixels the larger the picture you can make at high quality.
> That said - digi is easier to pick up as you can play around with it for aaages take 100s of shots under different settings and it costs you nothing but time - so in that respect its easier -- and if you understand normal camera info then with digital its the same -- the only differenve being post production using programs like photoshop


Thank you OR.  Perhaps I should look at a camera with less pixels but more zoom factor, seeing as I like to take close up pictures.
The photo editor I have on my computer is good but I will look into other programs.


----------



## Overread

hmm you can get photoshop elements 6 from most shops - and that won't break the bank open and its got enough features
as for cameras - if you not going SLR talk to leisha -- all of hers so far have been of a handheld digital - not SLR


----------



## The Ace

Believe me, Rosie half the world's pros know about Praktica, the other half learned the trade on Zenit, was it a B-series or the old screw mount ?

   I never liked Olympus, but their new digital SLRs seem to be fairly effective.  Nikon's unquestioned build quality tends to be offset by their over-engineering, they're always heavier than they need to be, but as OR said, it's really personal choice.   Try to get a chance to handle them both and see which feels better, a good camera shop won't mind in the least.


----------



## chopper

this is a household unofficially sponsored by fuji, i'm afraid. Mrs Chopper uses the 9MP S9600 with gleeful abandon - our budget doesn't stretch to a digital SLR of the proper variety, though there's an old Canon SLR still knocking about that's fun to use. my personal preference is Mrs C's older S602, which is a breeze to use and made light work of a holiday in Marrakech.

I think it really is down to personal choice as much as anything else, but we've not yet had any kind of problem with the fujis. rosemary - Mrs C takes a lot of macro pics with hers; does very good close-up stuff.


----------



## Rosemary

Thanks for all of your advice.  I'm not sure which my Pratika was Ace  Whatever, it took good pics.

It's sort of like driving a car.  I prefer to be in control of the gears, non of this automatic for me!  Anyway, I might get my son to give me a go of his digital. 

If I do chose digital, I shall probably get a Canon as my printer is a Canon, Chopper.  I expect I shall keep the Nikon for general pics though.


----------



## The Ace

Well, I love my Fujica AX-5, compared to the competition (first-generation multimodes ) it was unbeatable;

Canon A-1; You need a pilot's license to operate it.
Minolta XD-7; Limited programme mode, distracting viewfinder and lenses giving full function could be hard to find.
Mamiya ZE-X; Weird, complex lens-mount, unreliable electronics and unmetered manual.

The Fujica's only flaw was its rare lens mount.

Interestingly, Mamiya and Fujica stopped making 35mm SLRs after this, and Canon and Minolta's next multimodes were completely redesigned.


----------



## Overread

the canon camera flies! intersting feature 

out of interest, anyone know of a decent remote control for the EOS 400D Canon?
I have found this one: Amazon.co.uk: Canon Remote Controller RC-1: Canon: Electronics & Photo
but it seems that it does not support burst shooting --


----------



## Erin99

I found this:

*Contains EOS 400D body & standard accessories (see below) *

Battery Pack NB-2LH, Battery Charger CB-2LT, Neck Strap EW-100DGR, Eyecup Ef, Camera Cover R-F-3, USB Interface Cable IFC-400PCU and Video Cable VC-100 

ZoomBrowser EX (Win), Image Browser (Mac), PhotoRecord (Win), PhotoStitch (Win/Mac), Remote Capture (Win/Mac), Digital Photo Professional (Win/Mac), Camera Window (Win/Mac), RAW Image Task (Win/Mac) and Arcsoft Studio (Win/Mac)

*Optional Accessories *

AC Adapter Kit ACK-DC20 providing the ability to shoot powered directly from mains power supply 

Semi-Hard Case EH18-L accommodating for the body and the lens 

Battery Grip BG-E3 with vertical operation controls and housing dual NB-2LH Li-Ion battery packs 

Complete range of over 50 Canon EF lenses including L-series and Image Stabilizer lenses 

Canon EX-series Speedlites and the MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite and MR-24EX Macro Twin Lite 

Remote Switch RS-60E3, Remote Controller RC-1 and Remote Controller RC-5


(link here: Canon EOS 400D Enthusiast Kit Digital SLR Cameras)





And this:

Canon EOS 300D Remote Control RC5 - Digital Camera Company UK


You could look them up. I have no idea how effective they are, though. But it should be simple enough to find reviews.


----------



## Overread

I notice a lot of battery hints in there


----------



## Erin99

Moi? Hint?








Do you think you'll buy a spare battery, then? I have two for each of my cameras, and I don't recall a trip where I've only used one...


----------



## Overread

hmm *moves here from the TR l*
I looked at the battery Leisha, but Canon NB-2L, NB-2LH PREMIUM compatible battery (CA2LHP). - The CA2LHP is a 7.4v 900mAh... appears to be a home brand battery as opposed to a canon offical make -- and I have heard some bad things about second party batteries

and I looked about for the offical batter, Jessops have it Canon NB-2LH EOS 350D PS60 Battery at rather a cost, and at a good chance of not being in store and having to order it through

Amazon sell it for a book less (£10) Amazon.co.uk: Canon NB-2LH Battery Pack: Electronics & Photo

I will certainly pick up a new battery and chances are it will be from amazon - I have already seen how quick they can charge down -though they charge up quick as well, its a pain to try and find a few hourse and a power socket in the middle of knowhere (or evin in the middle of a town!


----------



## Erin99

You need something like this, if they have them in the UK: Portable power source: XPower Power Source Mobile 100 : TurboGadgets Gadget Reviews and Gadget News 

I'll look for _proper_ Canon batteries and see if I can beat Amazon's price. If I find anything, I'll post it up here tomorrow.

But I've used compatible equipment before, and I've had no problems. However, I don't know if that's different for your Canon.


----------



## Overread

I would be more concerned about batteries, as if they do go wrong they can mess up the whole camera, memory cards and other accessories are not as dangerous, but batteries can be.
hmm interesting device that 0 could be cheaper than even more batteries


----------



## Erin99

I've found a replacement Duracell battery (yes, yes, I know - but Duracell is a name people trust!): CANON NB-2L Digital Camera Batteries, Chargers and Adapters Digital Camera Lithium ion - Duracell D

I'm still trying to find a cheap Canon one.

Do you know about mAh? The bigger you get, the better and longer the power will last. eek: I sound like a spam e-mail! )


----------



## Overread

hehe your more interesting though!
and I did not, but according to that site and amazon, the canon had a higher 720 mAh capacity over the 650 mAh for the duracell even though duracell claims "Guaranteed to meet or exceed the original manufacturer's specifications for the NB-2L Battery"
though 3 years warrenty is good and they are a well known brand - price is also £10 cheaper!


----------



## Erin99

*is straining at the effort of keeping her mouth shut - or, should I say, her fingers*

If I reply again, you'll reply - and you need sleep!

*looks stern*


----------



## Overread

cruel cat!
I could talk to myself 
I can do that!!!


----------



## Erin99

And I would ignore you - like now! See? I'm ignoring you.


----------



## Majimaune

I hope the only lights are red in here. Otherwise it will screw up the photo developing.


----------



## Lith

Ah, but Maji- we're doing all color developing now. No lights whatsoever. *_cracks head on... something_* Ouch!

Rosemary, if you go digital, get as much OPTICAL zoom as you can. The DIGITAL zoom's not much use, as you can get the same effect with Photoshop. 

I come from a very Canon-loyal family, though I've nothing against other camera companies. My little handheld Canon's wonderful; I only wish I'd have bought one with a video-stabilizer thingy. 

I kind of miss traditional photography, but not too much, since I never seem to use the camera anymore when the digital's within reach, and I don't have to mess with aperture settings, which I always found a bother. But I miss the darkroom a bit. Still got my film-developing gear. It cost a lot back in the day, but I'm not sure it's worth much now. 

My cousin bought the be-all, end-all of cameras last summer- digital SLR with um, everything, and like a 10X optical zoom, etc. I would be jealous, but mine only cost a tenth of his, so I can't be too upset about it. I only wish I could put different lenses on mine; too wide for close-ups, too narrow for wide panoramas. Sigh.

As for batteries, I'm partial to any that use standard sizes. I've heard the special batteries are more efficient, but I'm leery of getting stuck somewhere in need of some and not being able to buy more at a gas station.


----------



## Overread

hmm Ace - ever heard of a Pentax LX slr?


----------



## Overread

well that one got answered - but now something new, relaited, but not fully camera stuffs:
OR is thinking of making an online photojournal - something to force him to make notes on his works as he progressess and to keep an account of all the changes - aside from the uploader photobucket.
Sofar I have found Flickr and Devient Art -- either one decent for the job?


----------



## Erin99

Wow! I went to look at the signup page for Devient Art, just to see what it said, and it told me I can't access the page because I'm banned! 

And I've never signed up before...  'Tis odd indeed!


Anyway, have you thought about starting your own website and doing the journal yourself?


Hmmm... Flickr is known for people stealing your work from it. Just a thought...


----------



## Overread

well any website with art can have it stolen -- but only I will ever have the original unedited (and sill pixles wide) images -- so if anyone ever tried to profit they would have a hard time proving ownership (if I caught them)
As for diviant - I looked about and when they ban they ban IP address fully - so chances are you got hit by someone else who has the same IP as you - or did so at some point - but you can apply to get in still
 As for running my own site == too much bother in honesty - I would get bogged down insight making I think


----------



## Erin99

Gah! Deviant can just do without me. I'm not bothered with all the fuss.

Well, anyway, it would definitely be better to only upload smaller, highly artifacted JPG images, that way if people try to zoom in they only see loads of squares. 

Have you thought about using a program to document your work instead? There are loads of photo album-type programs out there.


----------



## Overread

oh true there are - but then I cannot share my understandings and pet theories with others - at least not easily!
as for a program -- well in truth I could just use effiecnt folder managing with descriptive notepade files in each folder detailing the important info -- but thats not really what I am after


----------



## Erin99

Ah - you want to show the world your pics! And why not?!

Try this: online photo album - Google Search


----------



## Overread

hmm that site seems full of ugly children -- least thats what all the ad. images have !
also - seems to offer mostly what photobucket is, but adding on a sale room.
Flickr is looking the best at the moment, but whilst deivant tells me what I get if I pay *and I am not playing* its more cagy about what is free - so tis tricky to work out


----------



## Erin99

Did you look at the Picasa one? I've heard Good Things about it: http://picasaweb.google.com/


----------



## Overread

hmm well I think I will have to think on it with a more awakened mind 
at the moment though flickr is looking best - diviant seems to have good members, but a lot of - well teenage baggage attached - as most of the decent features are paying ones --

sigh - all this light and zoo pic showing- maybe I should try and get up to Whipsnade - its only 2 hours by train!


----------



## Overread

Well for any that are interested:
my attempts with blogging and images:
After wandering round several site I have set0up a blog here: Overread’s Weblog

now I origanly selected this site because is allowed image linking to flickr - however unless you pay for a flickr account you cannot access the largest version of any image you upload. The site does generate several smaller versions in a range of sizes for you - but the largest is restricted unless you pay for an account. Now this is mostly for people who post up the full version of pics (IE silly numbers of pixels to each side) whilst I am already reduceing the images for the internet. Thus I have two choices - upload the full versions (where I also have to downsize to less than 5mb) or continue to use photobucket.
Experiments with the bucket have yealded good results - and top2 images are photobucket - whilst hte lower is flickr. Now the only downside is that flickr displays the Exif data with all images that upload and contain that data. Now this can be handy with methodologies = but at the end of the day I could just not be lazy and upload the data manually to a blog post about the picture.


----------



## Erin99

Oh, so you're definitely going with Flickr, then? I really liked this place:

Online Photo Album - MyPhotoAlbum.com

Look at how much you can customise your album! Brilliant (as long as it isn't decorated in pink! ). 

And you can have albums _in_ albums.




> flickr displays the Exif data with all images


(And I sometime look at that data, OR! I right-click on the image and it tells me what settings you used! - only that was in Photobucket, not Flickr.)


----------



## Overread

I think I will stay with the bucket for now - if I do start to upload the large fuller version of my pics then the upload limit and storage space will hit me 
I will keep them in mind though - as if I ever can convince myself that I have the money thier subscribed options are good ----
hmm nice site! the only down side to photobucket is that as a file uploader it works well, but it lacks comments from other people - but as I will be linking the images into the blog this should not be too much of a major problem
only problem is working out what to put in teh blog -- and get all the pages together with the data!

huh? how - when I right click I only see the basic propertise - telling me the location of the file and such


----------



## Erin99

That's why I've never set up a blog myself - I'm too boring!  I'd have nothing to say.

So, what sort of things will you use your blog for? Is it mainly your photos - and to show your family? Or have you other plans for it?





And you saw a ghost??? Are you sure you weren't just super tired?!  (I'm a believer - if there's no other explanations.) I saw _something_ back in my old Victorian house. Then again, there was loads of odd things going on in there...


----------



## Overread

I think my mind might have created somthing - I was in deep sleep for only 50 mins or so -- but its strange how when the mind does play tricks it does so constantly - I looked away and back again at the shape - and it was still there and in the same form --- creepy

as for plans, well organising my photos and skills  -- as I don't attend or have ever attended any classes on the subject, I am essentially home taught - so the only way to get stuff right is to keep trying make darn sure that when I get it right I remember what I did. The stage after that is to understand why I got it right -- after that -- well anything that appears interesting in my life will possibly get thrown up -- don't expect much of that though


----------



## Erin99

LOL! You have a way more interesting life than me! And I bet you have some childhood tales to share...

And by the sounds of it you are _really_ taking this photography seriously. Perhaps OR would like to be a pro photographer one day?









When I saw my _something_ in that Victorian house, it was a tall, dark shape as well. I thought it was my dad in shadow - especially when he rounded the corner and went into my parents' bedroom. So I walked the rest of the way downstairs, peered around the open door - to see why he'd ignored my greetings - and discovered the room was empty. Afterwards I found my dad in the living room...


----------



## Overread

ghosts are creepy scary things -- but only in films do they ever cause harm 
well I have a long way to go yet before those dizzy heights! - A long way to go - but its a journy I want to take so it won't be a pain (though I might curse the weather more now


----------



## Erin99

I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you! I could tell you some true horror stories involving - and I loathe to use the word "ghost" because of it's connotations - but _things_.

One involves a pregnant women being pushed down the stairs. 



Hmmm... so does that mean you'd be interested in being a professional photographer? It's an idea, if you can get good enough. And the weather is a photographer's friend - especially bad weather. Bad weather = moody, atmostpheric shots - especially when you set the camera's contrast down a couple of notches!


----------



## Overread

very true - but drab grey skies and spitting rain are not very friendly 
and rain is not nice - esp when you don't have weather ceiling on the camera! but you can get some covers for cameras - essentially a plastic bag with a lens attachment and eyepices attachment - which I will oneday aquire for those damper days.

And now -- any ideas as to some numerical ordering system for pics?
I need to work one out


----------



## Erin99

It depends. If you were to have pictures from all over the country, I'd suggest you order them by county. If they were pics of dramatically different subjects, I'd recommend sorting them that way.

Or you could just sort them by date or month?


----------



## Overread

well they are each in their own dated file on the computer - different file per upload from the camer - but I need some system for iding them once they are in the "keeps" or "edited and played with" sections - currently a single folder in each photo trip


----------



## Erin99

How about topics, then?

You could start off with main topics: Animals, Birds, Pets, Landscapes, Waterscapes, People, Miscellaneous.

Under each of those headings you could have multiple subheadings:

Animals = Cats, Dogs, Other

Birds = Ducks, Pheasants, Swans, Geese

Pets = (whatever you have and take photos of)

Landscapes: London, Suffolk, Yorkshire, etc, etc.

Waterscapes: (name some places you visit that has water/the sea in them)

People: Family, Friends, Random people, Models

Miscellaneous: (anything else that doesn't fit in elsewhere)


----------



## Overread

certainly an idea - but I think for now I will kep them in dated groups -- that way I can see how my skills have developed - - and if there are any continuing errors/patterns


----------



## Erin99

If there _are_ any continuing errors, and you've been uploading your pictures here, too, I should think one of us will tell you where you're going wrong. 


I know _I_ certainly like helping, if I can.


----------



## Overread

well time to start organising the working on the list -- Though I should note that part of the reorganisation all my photobucket links are going to break!
nothing lost, but it will all be moved around a bit - so they are all breaking as a result -- sorry!


----------



## Erin99

Gah! I sometimes go and check your photobucket album, in case you have new images! 


I shall just have to get used to your new arrangement (yeah - I know you weren't actually meaning _me_ when you said that - but I had to put my 5p in ). Though it'll look odd that all your pictures in the PotD thread are missing...


----------



## Overread

is that a hint to respamm the thread


----------



## Erin99

ROTFL! Well, _I_ wouldn't mind. But the rest of them here...?


Or you could take new images and upload them? (Now _that's_ a hint!)


----------



## Majimaune

Lith said:


> Ah, but Maji- we're doing all color developing now. No lights whatsoever. *_cracks head on... something_* Ouch!


Black and white looks so much better.


----------



## Lith

Ca depends.  But I really only know how to do black and white, actually.  Color's a lot tricker, and I only helped my father with it back in the day.

Ghosts huh?  Don't believe in them (specifically, ghosts).  But I did see something once, and it wasn't shadowy- it was blue, rough-skinned, and bug-eyed.  And _yes_, it could easily have been my imagination.  But it was very creepy, and I wouldn't go in my friend's sister's room after that.  (But I digress...)

While we're on the subject of photo albums, does anyone know any that let you keep your photos wherever you want them on the HD, and allows you to put them in multiple categories?  I've got thousands and thousands of photos that need a whole lot of tags and multiple categories.  Like a cross-referenced database, really.  Like if a photo has a tree, a castle, and a kid, I want it to come up in all three categories, without keeping multiple copies of the file on my computer...


----------



## Overread

hmm tricky that last request Lith - personally I just have things arranged into groups by date taken  -but for that you would need an organising program of some sort. I know that photoshop has an organising feature -but I have never used it.


----------



## Lith

They are currently in rigidly-defined date order.  But most of the albums I've seen want to keep a separate copy of the photos in their own folder (which I'm NOT doing), and are geared more for organization by date or event anyway, which is rather useless, since that's how they already are.  Currently I just have to make due with Windows Thumbnail option.  

There's got to be something out there though- I've just been too busy with other things to remember to look.


----------



## Overread

Wildlife and nature photography hints an tips - working at high ISO

contains some interesting advice about using high ISOs and still getting good results - for shooting those moving birds and beasts!
There is also a note about this program:
Neat Image - best noise reduction for digital cameras and scanners
which offers a free download (though it has limited functionality) and is a more powerful noise reducer than photoshops -- least the full £40 version is.
looming heck!
I tried it out and bare in mind I only use elements and that I have very little idea what I am doing, but the results are staggaringly good!
I was going to add before and after --- but my choice example proved to be just as good with both programs .... but this is me -- there is much more control for noise in the addon for those that know


----------



## Erin99

I had a go with that Neat Image - it _is_ good, although somewhat blurs the image (which is to be expected, I suppose). I like what it did to my test images, though.


----------



## Overread

nice result!
its certainly a good bit of software - were you using the basic mode or the advanced?


----------



## Erin99

Basic until I realised I was. 


The advanced mode is far better - with better results! And when you use it as a plugin, the program only converts 1024 x 1024 of the image. When you use it as a standalone, it converts the _full_ image...


----------



## Overread

yah I noticed that - not sure why they did that - probably just to anoy people into getting the full software package 
I have not tried out advanced yet......AAAAHHHHH!!!!!!! too many buttons
*stares at controls*


----------



## Erin99

Is that a hint?


----------



## Overread

its a sighn that I needs sleep soon and tofight this device with fresh thought!


----------



## Erin99

Is OR exhausted today? Been out again? Or are you just sleepy?


----------



## Overread

sleepy - ver y sleepy!
though you should look in the blog - I was busy this day!


----------



## Erin99

Oh, you _have_ been busy! I love what you've done with the dogs, certainly adds colour and contrast. I think the dog pictures have to be my favourite, then some of the birds.

And get some sleep if you're tired! You sound like you need it.


ARGH!!! MY INTERNET DIED!!! I've only just got back on!!!


----------



## Overread

*is alseep*
*mumbles in sleep -- thanks night !*


----------



## Erin99

Sleep well, OR. I hope you feel better soon!


----------



## Overread

DSLR Tips: photography tutorials, video workshops, lens and accessory reviews
another site with guides - and video guides as well!


----------



## Erin99

BOO! Guess what I bought?

Nope, not a DSLR camera (although I want to!). I bought a 4GB flash card for my Minolta!  Up until now I've only made do with a 1GB one, which was limiting.

WOHOOOO!

And great site. I've bookmarked it. Some of what's covered was in this month's issue of my camera magazine, and last month's. Now all we need is some nice weather so we can test everything out!


----------



## Overread

shame that the weekend is looking to as a windy-wet-washout!
and living with only 1GB - yes that is limiting - just enough to get on a shooting roll before running out - but now 5GB total


----------



## Erin99

Yes, it _is_ limiting - when you keep your camera quality set to its highest. 


Apparently we're getting snow tomorrow up here, so no zoos for me.  I wouldn't mind going to the fells with my camera, so I can get some snow shots, but it's not possible. Bah. It's been a while since I got shots of snow on the hills.


----------



## Overread

depends on the snow though -- if its a brief dusting or a compelete covering 
you could try playing with ice and macro shots


----------



## Erin99

I think it's suppsed to be a thick snowfall - the best kind! Although it makes roads dangerous...

Hmmm... macro shots is a good idea, although I'm somewhat limited for subjects, since we only have a tiny backyard at this house. And I prefer going out if someone else comes with me!

I suppose I could find some frost-covered spiders on the wall to take photos of.


----------



## Overread

hmm one thing I have discovered recently (today!)
RAW mode on the camera is great for taking shots of white things - like huskies - in the sun! Though I have a lot more to learn about editing RAW images I can get a much much clearer shot of the whites without all the dazzle getting in the way


----------



## Erin99

RAW! My Minolta does RAW - though I have yet to try it (didn't have a big enough card, which is now solved). With RAW you can edit the image's red, blue, and green layers seperately, then save them as one (such as altering the sharpness, or whatnot so the background is in focus in one layer, then the foreground on another, and so on and so forth).

But yeah, RAW is something I'm keen to try!


----------



## Overread

IT uses a whole new interface (but you can cheat and save a JPEG and then edit that normaly) but I hear lots of good things about RAW - the only downer does seem to be space on the card - and a slower writing speed which can mess up if you are multishooting (but I think 3 or 4 frams should get through with little fuss)


----------



## Erin99

I don't multishoot, so I'd be fine.  But space is _definitely_ and issue for me...

And apparently RAW makes doing that HDR easier, if you don't want to do it manually - I downloaded a program that took RAWs and stacked them once they'd been edited. Only problem is, I have no RAWs... Grr.


Oh, and Adobe also has a free plugin RAW thingy for most makes of camera - which means your RAWS can be recognised and opened in Elements.


----------



## Erin99

Aha! Here's the update for the RAW plugin for Adobe Elements 3 and 4 and CS: Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Camera Raw 3.3 update

It's also useful for people who have older versions of Elements, which didn't come with RAW support (it enables it). 

Version for people who have version 4 and older of Elements: Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Camera Raw 4.3.1 update




Main page: Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS3: Digital camera raw file support


----------



## demolition lover

my camera isnt that good, but i can take ok pictures on it, i need a new one, can anyone suggest anything.
I would like it to be quite portable, easy to use (because i'm not very good at getting them to work) and probably water proof but that's not desperate.
I often take pictures of moving things, like animals or waterfalls act.

can anyone help?


----------



## Overread

hmm well first 3 questions come to my mind
1) budget - there is much out there, but to give advice we really need to know how much you are willing to spend.

2) type - are you aiming for digital or traditional (film)?

3) are you aiming for a take all commers camera or SLR (or DSLR (digital version))


----------



## demolition lover

I'm honestly not sure, I dont want to spend too much, and I think I want digital.

I mean too much as in hundreds of pounds really. Under fifty is best coz my sis will probably try to eat it.


----------



## Overread

hmm best advice then really is to go into town and have a try out in the shops. 
The only catcher is that every digital camera comes WITHOUT memory cards - so that adds another £10-£10 onto the cost on top of the basic body of the camera.
If you can search though, amazon has some very good offers on both cameras and memory cards


----------



## demolition lover

great, thankyou


----------



## Overread

well from helping to needing help:
Well I am planning to get hold of a new lens for my 400D in the semi near future (sometime in mid summerish): 
I have considered getting the Canon EF 100mm-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. I am currently using a Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro lens for nearly all my photography - the only other lens that I have being the older kit lens (no IS).

Essentially I am looking for a lens to replace my sigma in the majority of my photography, whilst also adding to the range of subjects that I can capture; the 100-400 would seem to do just that though I have read that it loses clarity at the 400 end, though it seems that changing the f number off f5.6 can solve this problem (or at least reduce the loss in clarity). 
I have also considered getting a canon 1.4*2 teleconverter as well to get a little bit more out of the lens - though I do understand that the quality at the longer ranges will be less then for some of the fixed range lenses.
I have also considered these two lenses:
Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens 
Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
as the are in a similar price bracket to the 100-400 and would work better with extenders - however I am losing the lower ranges - possibly something to upgrade to at a later date

That at least was the original plan and I had decided to go with the 100-400 as whilst I do intend to use the longer range, I also intend to keep taking and improving the type of pictures that I have been doing so so far.

However someone suggested to me the canon 70-200/2.8L IS with 2x TC as an alternative to the 100-400. Now this does mean that I will have a lens that is far better at the 100-200 range than the 100-400 -- however from what I have found out the lens does lose quality when used with the TC at 400mm - that is unless you go to F11 then the quality is about equal for both.
Now the question is - do I take the 70-200 and TC and then wait to get a fixed focal length later (probably the 300 becuase it has IS) or do I stay with the idea of getting the 100-400?


----------



## The Ace

I was always told _never _to use a teleconverter with zooms, how things change.

   Remember, a 2x teleconverter will cost you 2 stops, turning an f5.6 lens into an f11, the deterioration in image quality is also marked.

   Try a converter with your existing lens first and see how it performs before spending large amounts of money for negligible gain.

  A note on IS;  On a standard zoom, as long as your shutter speed is above the reciprocal of the focal length, hand-holding isn't a problem, IS only comes in with a long, heavy telephoto or zoom lens.


----------



## Overread

I think that advice is still good - just that its not always possible to get a lens that will go all the way you want it to - and sometimes even if you get a poorer image, its better than no shot at all.
an extender on my current lens is a real no no though  - its not even got the quality in itself to hold a sharp image at max length - so extending it is not going to work (remember many of my images are shot close (a few metres if that only) and that is with a tripod.


----------



## Erin99

Bah! Every page is taking ages to load!!!

Anyway, something useful about converters: Photography: Teleconverters


----------



## Erin99

Oh, and wow! If I were you I'd _definitely_ start saving now. Look at the price of those Canon 100-400 lenses! 

canon 100 400mm items at low prices on eBay.co.uk


----------



## Overread

yep this is long term planning here!
though the lowest that I have found and like (on e-bay) is around £850 - and I know someone who has dealt with this chap - I would rather not order from hong kong for such high prices (pay pal only goes up to £500 cover)
and the F2.8 70-200 is a little more in cost as well!


----------



## Erin99

Yeah, my sisters have been stung on Ebay before, and Ebay wasn't too quick to refund them.

So what is your plan - is this lens just for personal use, or are you going to try getting into semi-professional wildlife photography? (I can see you being a wildlife photgrapher - especially since you've not really posted much else ).

You could try buildings and architecture as a subject - at least they don't move.


----------



## Overread

I can appreciate such art, but recently my sister has been doing art deco and such stuffs in her art (and I get dragged along to some of her locations - she is not that good with the lens - ps this is different sister to the one who shoots the animals) and I have found it harder to find the images in such locations. I think I could do so with practice, but as I am not under any teaching degree or anything I need good interest to make me do so - and I just don't have enough 
At the moment just for me to enjoy using and practice with - as for hte pro line - well I have considered that if I get good enough I might try selling on prints - either in local areas or I might try going online (but I would definatly take some advice in this area from people who are already in it before approaching as its a very different ballgame)


----------



## The Ace

Maybe I'll stick to my pentax and 135mm f2.8 a while longer.


----------



## Erin99

One day, Ace, one day... 


Hmmm... odd that you don't have the enthusiasm to take shots of buildings. I always find that no matter where I am I can find something to shoot (with a camera ). Up here there's plenty of lanscapes, but I find buildings are just as good. And up here we don't have the B&W houses that you have, and a couple of others.  Windmills are unusual subjects, as are manor houses, castles, abbeys, etc.

Up here we have Lanercost Priory, and that's good:

lanercost priory - Google Image Search
Lanercost Priory : Cumbria : North West : View properties : Properties : Days Out & Events : English Heritage

Maybe there's places like that near you?


----------



## Overread

oh there is certainly good and interesting buildings in this area and if I was passing by I might stop to shoot, but I am not driven to seek them out as I am with the wildlife


----------



## Erin99

Oh! And I thought all the photgraphers would want to take pictures of Carlisle Castle and the citadel when they came up here! Granted, it's not really much, but it's all this city has. 

What about landscapes? Do you like lakes and such? You could do a spot of photographer's diversification p) and when times get rough, shoot landscapes and lakes instead. 

Oh! Oh! Oh! And then you could go to Scotland and shoot the (locals? No) lochs! They're so beatiful! Do you like sunsets? Nothing beats a good sunset over a loch. 


I miss Scotland.... You should get your family to take you for a trip up there. Honestly, you'd fall in love with the place. You can't _not_.


----------



## Overread

Well landscapes are good things to take - and I do really want toget into the northern (or western) parts for some hills and mountains!
its just so farmy round here!


----------



## Erin99

Farmy? Oh, what a fabulous adjective! 

Yorkshire was farmy, too. And cold. Very cold.


Hmmm... I doubt you'd find many mountains in the north west, though, only in the west west.  Our fells are flat compared to Wales and Scotland, and the Pennines are still classed as small. But oh! they're beautiful in Scotland and Wales! I wish the meetup was in Fort William! 

The caravan site we stay at is beautiful at this time of year! Normally we go at the end of May, but this year, like last, I don't think we'll go. At least it's not such a long delay for a holiday; when I was a teenager I went without a holiday for 7/8 years.


----------



## Overread

hmm speaking of holidays I might be able to convince family to go to the lake district for holls!
though this is tricky = some want to go to hot places!!
with pools and heat and sun and many more bugs at night!!


----------



## Erin99

WHAT???! Oh, OR, you'd love it up here! I could give you a list of all the must-see sights! And you could pop in and say hello. 


Although, yah... Cumbria or Hot Place... Cumbria or Hot Place... To most there's no competition. 


But YAY! OR can see Cumbria! That's be great!


----------



## Erin99

Okay, since this is a photography thread and I don't want to keep filling up the picture thread with my photos, I'll post them in here. Hopefully no one will mind...

I'm posting the worst pictures first, be warned!























(They shared my lunch)


----------



## Erin99

Oh, and this image is terrible quality because I used my full zoom here. But the bird was so cute - it had a bath in the muddy puddle!






And here's a building I like, especially when the sunset hits the glass:






(Rubbish shot, I know, but I took it while we were at a red light)

And a duck, because everyone seems to be shooting ducks lately. 





Again, the quality is not so good because I used my full zoom.


Anyway, those are the last of the rubbish shots. Now I can upload the ones I'm more happy with!


----------



## Erin99

I made some mirrored lakes, since I didn't see many real ones yesterday. Some people may like them, others may not:

(This one looks really weird because of the floating tree shape. But I think it makes it abstract.)



























(Sorry about filling this thread, BTW. I have quite a few pictures...)


----------



## Overread

WOWOWOW!
I love the reflections! They are so good you could turn the shot upside down and people would take time to notice the fine difference between the land and the water!
And I Think I see some spooky face in the first landscape shot


----------



## Erin99

Someone likes them!!! My sister saw them and went, "Oh, you're not doing _them_ again, are you?"

I like doing them. Besides, when you're not around in time to see a still lake, you hve to improvise. And making an image into a mirror lake is surprisingly easy (and I don't even use the Flaming Pear plug in that everyone else uses; I do it manually!)

And I've looked and looked and... a face? I can't see it! Where?!


----------



## Overread

Look at the reflection - the two thick upper armes of the tree mark the brow - the hazy bit in the middle is the nose - with the clear gaps either side being the eyes. The mouth (ofcourse) is huden under the beard!


----------



## Erin99

Oh, LOLOLOLOL! Now I see it! The Evil Floating Tree of Cumbria!


And now here's Tarn Howes, a beatiful beautiful spot with vast mountainous scenery all around:
















And snow! I saw snow on the hills:










I got a bit carried away by this scene, so I shot too many pics! But I LOVE it there!


----------



## Overread

the sky was not on your side this day - but even so those are wonderfull sights - something to bully parents into taking you to again on a bright sunny day


----------



## Erin99

Yah, the sun was not with me then - but it came out later, as you will see! And I've already been to that spot before; my granddad (bless him. RIP) climbed on that gate and was swinging on it in front of a few people. 

Don't you love grandparents? They try their hardest to make you die of embarrassment. If I get that old, I should like to do the same to my young relatives.



Okay! Here's the next few, and the category is "skies". Some of them have come out too dark, but I only aimed to capture the sky for my memories (I love skies):






(A grab shot, as you can see!)


----------



## Overread

The first shot definatly takes the win for the sky shots - great - and the darker land works well with the shot - you might try ctopping out some of the more empty upper regions and just having the dark land the the greater part of the sun touched clouds.
The second also looks good, but a little overexposed on the sky - but as the trees in the forground suggest - its a good grab for a drive-by shooting!


----------



## Erin99

I'm still saving the best shots for last! Best I shall not show you them just yet... And thanks for the suggestions. I'm always eager to get more.

Here's some other _meh_ shots:











And one of a beautiful place, Kirkstone Pass. It reminds me of Glencoe in (surprise, surprise) Scoland:






And a nicely lit up tree:


----------



## Erin99

And a... uh... pretty hillside somewhere in Cumbria:










(Hmmm... I should probably have cropped that one. Oh well.)


----------



## Overread

ooh I really like that last one - the light was one your side then - comming up for an evening shot there - good shot!


----------



## Erin99

Yes!!! The sun came out in time for a great sunset (which is what I've been saving until last!). That picture is my favourite of the three, as well.

I'll upload my Olympus shots first, since they are my least favourite. And - grrr! - my Olympus camera had been set to the smallest res and I didn't notice until halfway through the sunset shooting. NO!!!


----------



## Sephiroth

_Sleek_.  

The sky in the bottom one is epic, and I absolutely love the top one.  They're all good, but if you stare at the top one it sort of looks like an ethereal landscape, with dark land and golden coasts & water, and an umber sky.....


----------



## Erin99

_Sleeky!_ Someone else likes them!

Here's the better shots of the sunset, taken with my Minolta:

The worst one, which is where I focused on the land, for a change (I'll have to crop out the sunbursts sometime):





A peaceful one:





Ditto:






And I'll save my favourite - and last! - three for the next post.


----------



## Overread

*eagerly awaits the next post*
great sky shots! that last one is wonderfull with the gradient of light on the land going from dark to birght - and with the hills it looks fantasy like!
And the reflections on the water add a spark of colour in the dark landscape!


----------



## Sephiroth

The top one is fantastic, it has real depth of field, like I'm actually there looking across the landscape.  And the light is wonderful, you've really captured that sunset glow on the green grass.  

You're good!  



...but I thought Mintolas were mint Munchies......?


----------



## Erin99

Oh, fans! Must upload the last three shots... Must upload the last three shots...


And the DoF in that first image is pants compared to if I'd used my tripod and set my camera to a different aperture...

Anyway, I shall stop waffling and start posting, or else I will not be able to get the thought of _mints_ out my head... mmmm... mints....

Okay, in 3rd place, here it is (liked even _with_ the lens flare):









And in 2nd place:










And my best image of the day:





(I'm very proud of that one. And, as you can see, I used a gradient filter on it, too, to give it some colour.)


----------



## Sephiroth

*applauds*





Beautiful.


----------



## Overread

*would applaud, but paws don't connect together in that way well enough*
WOW!
*stares in stunned silence*




great shots - esp that last - definatly a keeper!


----------



## Erin99

I've run out of happy smilies...

Aha! *wipes the crisp salt off her fingers (you made me hungry), then types her smilies Japanese style:

^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^
^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ ^_^ 

I have it in 2852x2280 if either of you want a copy (it's okay if you don't). GAH! I put another smiley here, then realised I can't do so.


----------



## Sephiroth

Sure, I could add it to my nice pictures.  

I wouldn't mind the other ones I mentioned, either.


----------



## Overread

just upload your harddisk to the net liesha  - makes it simpler
but I would certainly like a copy of your last - definatly the pic (and pick) of the day!


----------



## Erin99

Ooh, hang on then. Me goeth to send picitures through the invisible magic connection, straight to your inboxes...

And, Seph, I'll dig out the rest tomorrow, when I reply to your e-mail. Right now I have no idea which pictures they are out of my 600... I'll have more time tomorrow.


And... and upload my HD?  You'd all see my story, my prized possession!


----------



## Overread

meh - that just means that we get to see it before its published


----------



## Sephiroth

Danke schön.  




I hope I get to see it before it's published.


----------



## Erin99

Well I know you will, Seph; you will be one of my main beta readers! (That is if you still don't mind.) I have you and Gio as my main readers who are not family. Then anyone else who chooses, if I know them. 

But I'm nowhere near finished on my editing yet...  Takes so long!


----------



## Sephiroth

Of course I don't mind, I look forward to it.  

So does Gio.  



And hey, you're doing pretty well compared to some of us.


----------



## Erin99

Not for the last few days.  I've felt blegh, so I've barely changed one sentence...

And you will get there. Yes, at times the task you've set yourself can look insurmountable, but if you work a little every day you will get there. And you have far more literary prowess than some I've seen. I have faith in you. 

(Hopefully that counts for something.)


----------



## Sephiroth

It counts for a lot, and I thank you for the compliment.    




It's just been one of those times.  I need to try and build up some momentum again......

You're right.  I mustn't give in..........


----------



## Erin99

Oh, you say "I thank you" too! I wrote that in my novel and my mum said, "What? Don't you mean 'Thank you?'" She wouldn't have it that that's how some people spoke!


Food, Seph. Food always helps the brain engage. You must not be eating enough - or right.


----------



## Wybren

OH Leish!! Those photos are brilliant!!!!

I thought I had already said this, but I will be happy to be a beta reader. I loved the little bit that I read and I want to read more


----------



## Sephiroth

Mmm, foood............................




*collapses*


----------



## Wybren

*Cryvacs some home made Corned Beef and ships it it scotland*


----------



## Erin99

Would Wybren like a copy of the last sunset one as well?


And yes, you are most certainly a beta reader, too! But I'm using (is that the right word?) Seph and Gio first, so they can point out any obvious errors, then my other readers won't have to worry about those.  Otherwise, if I have too many first readers, everyone advice will conflict! I will go mad! Mad, I tell you! So my readers will go in stages.


----------



## Sephiroth

*receives the corned beef, savours it and is instantly revived*



Mmm, wonderful!  Fit for a laptop technician, I'd say.  






_Use _me, Leish, _use _me.  Then throw me away!!!  


Oh and thanks for the piccies.  Oh, and don't worry about the double-recipient thing.


----------



## Wybren

That sounds like a good idea, having readers in stages so your not overwhelmed with advice and suggestions.

I just heard news that the super tech may be hanging in the tech badge for the professional photographer badge  (I mean it is good for him though)


----------



## Erin99

*cough* Um... that _does_ sound kinda bad, when you put it that way, Seph. I'm using Seph!  I'm only after him for his brain, and then I'm throwing him away!


Oh dear... I've turned into a heartless woman! 


Photographers are great, Wybe. If I were to marry, I'd marry someone who did photograhy. It's a great hobby/career. Plus, I could nick his cameras... 

Although giving up the tech badge too? I like both.


----------



## Sephiroth

Is the world becoming overrun with photographers?





Isn't that what women are supposed to do, Leish?  

*ducks*


----------



## Wybren

Well, I just mean tossing in his job as the Tech at Matts work. I don't think he could ever stop being a tech. 

Women are supposed to do what Seph? Become heartless or use men for their brains and toss them away


----------



## Erin99

Overrun with photographers? Where? Let me out there!

"Hallelujah, it's raining photographers!"


I'm taking my fishing net. 


You're right, Seph. I shall use you up and cast your broken mind aside as I laugh gleefully and publish my book.


Urgh... "gleefully". Is there no worse adverb?


----------



## Sephiroth

Both, Wyb.  


Um, Leish, must you _break _it before you cast it aside?

Oh wait, of course you must........



I'd say there are a few worse adverbs than _gleefully_, although it isn't pretty.  Adverbs in general ain't pretty, with very few exceptions.......


----------



## Erin99

Like _prettily_. Blegh! I HATE that one.

And I'm sorry, but I'm heartless (I think that might be a contradiction in terms ). I must break your mind, _then_ toss it aside. Although I'm not sure if I will break it consciously or subconsciously... I've had my family tell me on numerous occasions that I'm enough to make them hit their head against a wall, because of my stubbornness.

Oh, and then there's my history with pets. With me it's: I love you but I'll kill you. Sorry. 

So, Seph, I like you but I'll break you. Sorry. 


And now my computer's just popped up to tell me it's bedtime. Grrr. I must be away.


EEK! I just realised, my computer's like my other half!  I spend nights with it and it tells me when I have to go to sleep. Oops... How scary is that?!


----------



## Wybren

You have your computer set to tell you when to go to bed??? 

Night Leish, and thanks for the photo.

I wish you all could have been here last night to see the storm cloud. It didn't storm here but you could see this cloud and there was lightning, but it was contained in the cloud. It was amazing.


----------



## Sephiroth

LOL, Leish....... 


Well, I'll enjoy what time I have left, then.  



And goodnight.  Lovely to see you again!  Talk to you soon.  Yoi-yume-o!  

Stupid computer!!!


----------



## chrispenycate

Why is everybody talking about adverbs in a very dim, red illumination? And what am I doing in a darkroom? I've just got my brand-new, shiny, digital, only one lens snapshot machine; I should be learning to use photoshop (or at least get it into the same operating system as 'Nikon transfer'.) I used to have a darkroom, with smelly chemicals (now how could I make an adverb from that? Developing films smellily?) and an enlarger like a monkey on a palm tree, but now I am _modern_! 
(prods self and doesn't feel modern)

And you know I offered to clean up punctuation. (Oh, I see. Shockproof brain means can't be thrown away afterward.)


----------



## Erin99

Chrispy!!! You should know you can't just announce you've got a digital camera and then leave it at that! We want details! Make? Model? Colour? Price? Settings? Extras? Usability? Previous owners? Service history? Contract clauses?

And thanks. I still can't believe you've volunteer to look my novel over for errors. You're fantastic.


----------



## Wybren

Ok well I have looked at Dslr's and have narrowed it down to the Olympus e510 and the canon 400d as I can get both with 2 lenses for under $1400. Anyone want to throw in their opinions?


----------



## Erin99

E-510!!!!! Yay!!! That's the one I will be buying - one day!


Go Oympus! Go Olympus! 


*waits for OR to contradict her*


Canon is the make everyone seems to prefer.


----------



## chrispenycate

Leisha said:


> Chrispy!!! You should know you can't just announce you've got a digital camera and then leave it at that! We want details! Make? Model? Colour? Price? Settings? Extras? Usability? Previous owners? Service history? Contract clauses?
> 
> And thanks. I still can't believe you've volunteer to look my novel over for errors. You're fantastic.


Well, it's not a sophisticated toy like the ones you're talking about - small and simple, like its owner.

It's a Nikon Coolpix P5100, with a 7.5 - 26.3 mm zoom; a snapshot camera with automatic focus (it must be possible to turn that off - ah yes, picture of mountain, picture of flower, AF, doubtless that) auto exposure, auto flash, antivibration...
I don't really know how to use it yet; I wander round with the instruction manual in my pocket. But its good to have a working camera again; my 35mm was really a bit too far gone. Brand new, birthday present from most of my friends (the others gave me bottles of wine)
It has a flash shoe, but whether this can take anything apart from an external flash remains to be seen.

And I don't think it can contract much further; they've already shrunk it to an eighth the size of the conventional one, much smaller and I wont be able to feel the difference between its various buttons.


----------



## Wybren

Yeah I know, one of my other photographer friends has a Canon 30D and recommended the Canon. But the E-510 seems to have better spec's. Although I would like the E3 as it is splash proof and a bit more sturdier but is is out of my price range.  I have been happy with our Canons but the E510 looks mighty tempting


----------



## Overread

hmm well (from what I have read rather than experiance)
most people debat and fight between canon and nikon - I have been wondering why the olympus has not entered into this debate as much and (with little research as befits a chair theory) I think it might be the case of upgrading. The 400D and E-510 don't seem to have a massive difference in stats when compared to each other - but is the next level camera a bigger difference in the two - this might lead to some choosing not to take the olympus because they dream/hope/wish to get a "better" body later one and still be able ot use thier lenses. 

there a pet theory
*waits for Leisha to shoot it apart*


----------



## Erin99

Wow, Chrisp, those specs are not to be seezed at: image stabalisation, 4000x5000 resolution, 12.1 mega pixels, built-in flash...

Nikon Coolpix P5100 Black Compact Camera (VAA840B1) - Warehouse Express

Nice! Most of those specs beat my old Olympus C750UZ. 




Wybe, another great thing aout the E510 is the price. It's coming down all the time. When it forst came out it was around the £700-800 price mark; now it's £300-400. And, as you say, the specs are great.

I had a go on my dad's E400 and I'm now sold. It was absolutely fantastic, and so easy to use. And the quality was... wow.


----------



## Erin99

LOL, OR! My dad once explained why Olympus doesn't sell as well. I wish I'd paid attention.  I think it was just the fact that Canon is such a well known brand that's synonymous with photography, as is Nikon. When someone chooses to buy a camera that's the makes they'll have heard of.

Plus, I think (IIRC) that he said that those manufacturers have such a big influence over the market, with them being so branded and featured everywhere. Smaller companies don't stand a chance as competition, even if they're better.


----------



## Overread

very true comments Leisha - national geographic is full of canon adverts 
and those are the stats Chris - that beats my 400d on resolution and pixels as well!
and then it has image stabalisation.........mmmmmmmmm..........stable images


----------



## Wybren

Ah I see your point OR. My friend mentioned he had tossed up between the Nikon and the Canon and had decided to go for the Canon.

See that is one of the big things going for the e510 is the cost. Not only is it comparable to the Canon, I can get the olympus from Matts work and he gets cost + 8 and he says the mark up on the cameras is about 30%.


----------



## chrispenycate

And takes an inordinate amount of time to use its laser tapemeasure to do the focussing. I'm used to aim and shoot, perhaps woggle the lens rings for focus. 
But I will work it out, promise.


----------



## Erin99

OR, you should get an Olympus with IS as your next camera. 

Not that I'm a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE fan of Olympus...


Well, Wybren, having tried my dad's camera, which is 2 models down from the E510, I can safely say it's brilliant. If you like I could send you a full, non-edited photo taken with my dad's E400. You'll see how great the quality is.


----------



## Wybren

That would be tops, thanks Leisha   Matt just called and I asked him to check how much staff is on the e 510 and we can get about $150 off the rrp so I am well pleased with that.


----------



## Erin99

Wow! Now that _is_ a great deal.  Can you tell them I'm a long-forgotten staff member too? 

I'll send the photo now, then. Hang on...


----------



## Overread

hehe I am not helping the canon cause am I - but then with a deal like that Wy its way too good not to strongly consider - money saved on body means more for the lenses!
any idea what you are going for in the lens area?


----------



## Erin99

The standard lens my dad got with his E400 is superb. I forget which size it is - but it was great! The quality was excellent (you can tell by the amount of adjectives I'm using ).

And would you buy Tamron and Sigma and such, or the proper makes?


----------



## Wybren

Well Matts work has the E510 in a bundle with the body and 2 lenses for $1200 Lenses are Zoom lens - 14 mm - 42 mm - f/3.5-5.6 Four Thirds and Zoom lens - 40 mm - 150 mm - f/4.0-5.6 Four Thirds


----------



## Overread

I don't know about Tamron, but Sigma do make good quality lenses so they are a company I would consider looking into.



and as for getting new bodies leisha - I have thought that once I have my DSLR kit together (that is lens, tripod and head for tripod) that I will get a smaller digi-cam for happy snapping (the SLR takes time to get out and use and is not always to paw!)

hmm decent spread of ranges - you won't be hunting the wildlife with ease, but you should be mostly fine in zoos and such if you are after animals - the ducks at the park as well. And for scenery and landscapes the smaller lens should work well. (best I find is using image stiching in photoshop where you can take a line of shots and then link them together to make a full panorama!)


----------



## Wybren

Yeah, our Canon came with photo stitch which is brilliant. The larger of the olympus lenses is equivalent to a 300mm zoom on a standard SLR which is what I have been after for my SLR but as the lenses for that were discontinued years ago it is making it very hard to get.   So I think that that will be a good place to start with those lenses and see if I can also get get a camera bag discounted from matts work as well.  Oh and Leish if you lived here Matt would be giving you mates rates too


----------



## Erin99

My dad's used Tamron with no hassle (although I don't think the quality will ever be as good as a big-branded make).

Hmmm... OR is thinking of getting a smaller camera? Woooo! *whsipers* _Olympus... Olympus... Olympus..._ 


You'd have to watch out that you didn't buy a camera with a digital zoom lens, though; my Olympus has that, and, after I've gotten used to my Minolta, I find my hand's reaching to twist the (fixed) zoom lens, not the zoom lever. 




The four Thirds is good, Wybe. Other manufacturers can add on their lenses, and some people think it's a system that will catch on for other makes....

Plus, since the sensor size is small, your lenses will actually work at 28-84 and 80-300. 


Edit: Oh! I'm too slow. You've got there before me!


Wy, I'm heading to Australia now. Wait up!


----------



## Wybren

Yeah I read about that, that the lenses were equal to those ranges. 

As to a point and click type camera for happy snaps we have been really happy with our canon (S2IS) it has 10x optical zoom and I am unsure about the digital zoom as we have it switched off. We also have a Vivitar one which some one gave us for christmas, but though it is 4 mp the pictures aren't really that good.


----------



## Erin99

Oh, you have a 10x optical zoom one, too! Thy're great, aren't they, for plain digital cameras.  I've had this one for a few years: Steves Digicams - Olympus C-750 Ultra Zoom - User Review

I used to think the quality was good (I took all my Scotland photos with it) until I saw the quality of my Minolta.


----------



## Wybren

UGH My browser is stuffing up. not bad from what I can see.  cute pics by the way. Ta for sending them.  I have to go now though  TM is mega spinning out so I am going to take him to bed.


----------



## Erin99

LOL. I've just posted up that I have to go, too. So bye to you as well! I hope TM doesn't give you any trouble!


----------



## The Ace

Tamron were probably the best of the independents back in the old MF days, expensive even before  you added the cost of the lens mount  (Tamron  MF lenses used interchangeable  mounts which were extremely effective), but more than capable  of matching or beating many manufacturers' own mounts, giving even Nikon and Zeiss  a run for their money.

I don't know about their digital lenses, but I'd be most surprised if they didn't come up to scratch.

Sigma made some real junk (ask a veteran photographer about their 600mm  f8 mirror, but only from a safe distance)  but, by and large,  their lenses ranged from excellent to superb.

Sigma are still the only independent lens manufacturer  to be licensed to produce Leica mount lenses.


----------



## Erin99

WYBREN IS GETTING AN OLYMPUS!!!!!!


Sorry about that. 


Okay, well perhaps I'm not.


----------



## Wybren

I am have decided to get the Ol.... Oh I have been beaten to it


----------



## Erin99

Sure have.  But this is the start of a new page for some, so why don't you announce it in big letters too? 

(Make sure they're purple letters, though )


----------



## Wybren

Well just cause you asked so nicely

I am getting the Olympus E510

How was that Leish?


----------



## Erin99

Oh, that was wonderful! My two favourite colours!


In my old bedroom I painted the *walls in light green* and the *borders in purple*. 

You'll have to let me know what it's like when you finally get it. That's DEFINITELY the camera I'm getting when I can. When will you be getting it, do you think? In a couple of months?


----------



## Wybren

June or July, by the time it takes me to save, though I will be getting a tax return this year as I won't earn enough to pay tax so that will help. (oh and I always make sure matt gets a good return too)

Maybe by then the price might drop by then.

we always rented so I have never been allowed to paint any walls


----------



## Erin99

I've heard you can still ask your landlord if you can paint. I was tempted to with the house my sister and I rented; the owner had the most hideous wallpaper. 

And the price should drop by _something_, which is always a bonus. But... June and July is ages away! Bah. I want to hear about cameras now! 

I shall go mad waiting - MAD, I tell you!


----------



## Wybren

Well, june/july has all the end of financial year sales and as matts company is mainly for businesses I am hoping I should get a good deal then.

Hey your not the only one who will go MAD


----------



## Redtail

OR in answer to your question
I have about $400(aussie dollars) more if I wait a bit longer.
Im intending to photograph probably anything and everything, and yes I think just a hobby, but serious hobby.
I think Im after a one camera does all, as I know lenses can be very expensive!!
thanks


----------



## Overread

In that case I would listen to Wy about the Canon Powershot - there are differnet make, but I have heard and seen some very good results from them


----------



## Erin99

I've just done a currency conversion, and on two sites it says $400 Australian Dollars equals £188. For this price you can get a Fuji!!! 

I've always heard great things about the Finepix, and it's the camera I wanted to buy waaay back when I was considering going digital. And now, a few years later, the Finepix has only improved. Personally I'd go fo the S9600 - there's some great reviews on it, and here we can buy it on Amazon for £199.

Fuji Finepix S9600 Review

Looks stunning, too. Here it is to buy on Amazon UK: Amazon.co.uk: Fuji FinePix S9600 Digital Camera - Black (9.0MP, 10.7x Optical Zoom) 2.0" LCD: Electronics & Photo


Of course, if you want something slightly cheaper, you can't go wrong with a lower model: DCRP Review: Fuji FinePix S9000 and Steves Digicams - Fujifilm FinePix S9000 - User Review

Hope this helps! I'll also say that most Olympuses are fabulous, as well. I've always loved mine.


----------



## Overread

I thought you were editing 
seems we can't keep you away!


----------



## Erin99

Well, technically it's a weekend now...




Okay, so I popped in for a bit. But I won't stay long! Nope.


I think. Unless I can't keep my mouth shut, like always, in which case I'll be here until late...

And my editing is going REALLY well! Wooooo!


----------



## Overread

Ok I think I might have broken my mind -- it was a accident, but its bust now!
Anyway I have been wandering round trying to find a good macro lens to add to (if I can) this years other lens purchases. Now in the price range that I have roughly set I have found 3 contenders:

Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM Macro Lens
Sigma AF 150mm f/2.8 EX APO DG macro
with both of the above I can also either get a lighting arrangement or a sigma 1.4 converter as well
Sigma EX DG HSM 180mm Macro 

each as pros and cons, but I can't really find a big con for any lens over the others.
As I see it:
Cannon 100mm - defiantly the most popular lens with good reviews and the fastest auto focusing element of the three. Down side is that it also has the smallest working distance of the three lenses - it also ships without lens hood and tripod collar - the former being an important extra order. However it also, along with shorter working distance, does not blurry the background as well as a longer lens.

Sigma 150mm - good working range combined with good optics and ships with both collar and hood. Some have stated that it has better quality of shots than the sigma 180mm

Sigma 180 - most expensive lens on its own, ships with collar and hood. Often well reviewed with the 2*teleconverter. Has the longest working distance of the three lenses.

I have read quite a few reviews for all the lenses, but so far none of them have had any major drawbacks past focusing speeds - which is not really a primary concern for macro where a lot of work ends up being manual anyway.
I have also asked on no less than 4 forums - getting some mixed and some similar advice:

Macro lens choice - FM Forums
Amateur Photographer & What Digital Camera: Going macro with canon
Juza Nature Photography &bull; View topic - Going Macro
Going macro with canon - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum
and one that is not mine
Macro sigma 150? Sigma 180? Canon 100? Which one? - Canon Digital Photography Forums

I now think I might know where I want to head, but want to make sure that I am not being bias to anything - so anyone here willing to offer their view on the lenses?


----------



## Erin99

Duh! When I lurked here I read these posts, and now I'm logged in I forgot that I hadn't answered. 

From reading those people's comments, I'd choose the 150mm. It comes with extras the Canon doesn't, and it's a fairly decent range. Plus, quite a few people seemed happy with the quality of the shots. However, you already have a Sigma lens, so only you can decide if you're happy with the sharpness and quality. Most people would state that a camera's own brand lenses will always be superior to other manufacturers. Yet cost is usually the down side, except in this case.

Up to you, I guess.


----------



## Overread

Ahh another agrees with me - the 150 is what I was leaning towards 
True enough = though I do remember that my sigma is a budget lens trying to cover a large focal length and macro at the same time so its not the best. As for canon - to get longer its the canon 180mm macro at £1000+ way out of sane prices - its a good lens no denying it, but I have seen very very few people using it, most stick to the three above - the sigma falling in as a much more affordable option.
Thanks!


----------



## The Ace

Or you _could _try and pick up a set of extension tubes.


----------



## Erin99

I like giving my opinions. More so when they're not wanted. 

My sister's great with cameras, she'd probably have some good suggestions/bits of info about these things. Although she doesn't have a DSLR (she wants one, though), so maybe she'd be a newbie like me...

What price can you get the 150 for?



> Or you could try and pick up a set of extension tubes.


That's the word I was trying to remember! Thank you, Ace. My dad mentioned those to me tonight when I asked him about macro lenses...


----------



## Overread

I have thought about those - and they would work well with the lens I hope to get this summer - the canon 70-200mm f2.8 - however this macro lens is about half the cost of the canon so also acts as a very good back-up plan if I can't cobble enough together for the whole plan.
Though I certainly plant to get the cheaper tubes rather than canons own set - though granted I think they are environmentally sealed its not like I am going to do much macro in the rain
£399.95 from Camera King - have orderd from them through amazon with no problems so going through thier site direct should be fine.


----------



## Erin99

As long as you always check the URL says http*s* at the start when you are putting in your card details, you should be fine ordering from a big company.

But watch out - just because an Amazon seller names himself "Argos", doesn't mean he bears any relation to the store of that name. People can give any name when they sign up. At least you've ordered from Camera King in Amazon before. 


And... blimey. £400 is not cheap! It would take me months to save that up.

Have you checked the price comparison sites like Dealtime.co.uk and Kelkoo.co.uk and pricegrabber.co.uk ?


----------



## Overread

not yet = remember though that I am not (well technically speaking I am not) paying board and rent at home so that extends funds a bit.
Must admit that I don't really use those sites much - amazon is mostly the best online price for many things -*goes to check sites*
checked - camear king still the cheapest by a long shot!


----------



## Erin99

Oh, OR, you have a lot to learn if you think Amazon is usually the cheapest. 9/10 times I can beat their prices.

*shakes head*


----------



## Erin99

Grrr! Stoopid computer crashing!

Anyway, I found one for £399.00, but I've no idea about shipping or whatever, so perhaps your deal is still the best.


Sigma 150mm f2.8 EX DG IF HSM Macro Lens - Best Price at Bristol Cameras (and my dad's ordered from them before, so they're trustworthy.)

And here's what my forum has to say about your lens: Sigma 150mm f/2.8 APO Macro DG Interchangeable Lens Review

And another review: http://www.dicksonphotography.co.uk/Dickson Photography Equipment/Sigma 150mm EX.html

And now I have to get to sleep, since I'm out taking pictures tomorrow. Adios!


----------



## Erin99

Bah! Bah! Bah! My sister says she's just been reading up on the E-510 and it's got issues with overblowing the highlights and having a weird colour tone. Oh, and it also muddles up shadows... 

So, what do I do?! According to her, my Minolta's dying, although I could get it fixed by paying Sony/Konica to repair it. 

So, I'm back to looking at models/makes of DSLR. My sister likes the 400D.

I also like the looks of this one: Nikon D40X Review: 2. Specifications:


Grrr! But I was all set to get the E-510... I don't know what to do!!!


----------



## Overread

BAh Nikon == *shudders*


ok seriously either nikkon or cannon are a good company to got with - with the canon I would say your sister is right - the 450D (the upgrade of the 400D) is not a good upgrade of camera - infact its more of a booster of stats (higher Mega pixels, but resulting in a lower Fps and also as its on the same sensor as the 400D its not an improvment in photo quality.)
What you could try is something like this:
400D + nifty 50 (£60) for a 50mm prime lens from canon which gets good reviews and is fast and cheap. After that I think something like this:
Canon UK - EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM
ps that price is way above retail - amazon says £646 = ok still not cheap I know, but its a good general lens and is wide enough to do panorama shots (with a little stitching) and also be a good walk about lens with IS which is really a good must have!


----------



## Wybren

Well Loopy since your still saving, like I am

Olympus Australia | Digital Cameras | Digital SLR | Digital Lenses | xD Cards - E-520 details

Having said that though, i did have a play with one of these the other day and it was nice

Canon Australia - Canon Digital SLR - Canon Digital SLR EOS 40D


----------



## Erin99

*clicks on link and chokes on her Bourbon*

 Still not cheap indeed! 

TBH, I don't have a lot to play with money-wise, and since I'm needing a camera pretty quick (my other one is _still_ not working ), I'll have to find something cheap, and a set of cheap lenses too. Presumably 300-400mm for when I zoom in on my landscapes and such, and I do want a mid range lens as well, if it could be included in the price... and I can afford it.

This sucks.  My dad says the Olympus is still okay. But the thought of it ruining my highlights...


And didn't the 450D come with Liveview? That's one feature I like, which I suppose I could compromise on if I had to... sort of... maybe... bah!


----------



## Erin99

Wybren said:


> Well Loopy since your still saving, like I am
> 
> Olympus Australia | Digital Cameras | Digital SLR | Digital Lenses | xD Cards - E-520 details



Hello, Wy! Yeah, I'd thought about that one, but have you seen the price???  Since it's just come out recently, the price is still sky high. I couldn't hope to afford that in aaaaaaages.



Oh, and I have the last of yesterday's photos to upload before I go to bed early! I like some of them a lot, if I do say so myself.


----------



## Overread

yes 450 has live view - but at its current price why not go for the 40D instead - liveview and a little more balanced camera in the same price bracket.


----------



## Erin99

Oh - wait - the 400 has liveview too? I didn't know that. 


Now that sounds better... Gah! But then I'd have the same camera as you! I'd be copying you! 


Doh! CHoR as I take my lappy up.


----------



## Overread

450 - 40*D* 
have live view - - 400 does not (loopy has sleepy eyes this late!)


----------



## Wybren

They haven't been released here yet 

My friend has a 30D and says it is brilliant, and I guess as he is just about to have an exhibit in Melbourne I guess it must be good. He got his second hand.


----------



## Erin99

> 450 - 40D
> have live view - - 400 does not (loopy has sleepy eyes this late!)



Grrr! Yes, she's sleepy and in a rush - she's just had to relocate upstairs, and now she'd found out she has to be asleep in 10 mins!!!

And I've no idea if the 520 is out yet over here. I heard all the buzz about it, so I just assumed it was. TBH, I don't read up on it because then I know I'll want one, and they're too expensive...


9 mins and counting...


----------



## Overread

gah  well if loopy is tight on cash you could get a body new and then get a second hand lens = ebay or a photographers market (if there is one you can get to in the north)


----------



## Erin99

Second hand!!! 

Think of the germs! The _germs_!!!

*shudders*

Some people really don't have good personal hygene. It's bad enough when I have to buy second-hand books. My hands feel contaminated... urgh.


----------



## Overread

a good camera user does not even let dust get on his lens - let alone little germies 
you could get a good wideangle lens from the older non digital era - provided it fits whatever camera you get - and all you would lose would be the autofocus - not too much of a problem when landscapes don't run away


----------



## Erin99

My dad has Pentax lenses he said I could have, so maybe I should look at Pentax DSLRs....


Argh! Loopy, stop chatting and log off!

*looks stern at herself*

Adios... again, for the final time.


----------



## Momoka

Hey, when you return from your _other_ sister's house, why not look at one of the older models of Olympus? 

The E-330 has two types of LiveView - 'A Mode' TTL and a 'full time standard digital' or 'B Mode'. (To do it they actually placed a _second_ CCD-type sensor inside, especially for the 'B Mode' Live View )
View attachment 17081

They're lightweight, use the 4/3 system and come quite cheaply now. (Check your email for today  ) The picture quality is very good too, low noise until ISO 800 upwards. Oooh, and the LCD screen actually flips up too 

I should get revenue from Olympus for this


----------



## Erin99

Bah! No, I might get a Canon or Nikon, now. And I'm back at my home now, not at my _other_ sister's house. 

So you went for the deal, then? You've got a DSLR?


*clunk*


----------



## Momoka

Oh yes *__*

Now you have to too


----------



## Erin99

Wwo - looking at your recent photos, OR, especially these...






(that beak is SCARY, BTW)





(I assume you left the background as it is... the other way takes too long to edit)





(You could clone out the black spot on the right; that's my only critcism)







....I'm really thinking of buying a Canon...


----------



## Highlander II

Overread said:


> well that one got answered - but now something new, relaited, but not fully camera stuffs:
> OR is thinking of making an online photojournal - something to force him to make notes on his works as he progressess and to keep an account of all the changes - aside from the uploader photobucket.
> Sofar I have found Flickr and Devient Art -- either one decent for the job?




I know this is old, but there is a blogging site dedicated to exactly what you were looking for - fotolog.com

Slightly pimping, since a friend of mine works there, but it's sort of like LJ for photos.



ETA:  As for cameras - I have a Canon SLR and a Sony Cyber-shot.  Got the digi b/c I want to be able to snap quick shots when I go to Gatecon this year.  I'll have my SLR too, to get really GREAT shots of RDA, but that sucker's heavy... esp'ly with the extra lens and flash.  But I love that camera.


----------



## Culhwch

Four months - four months! - this thread has existed, and I didn't realise it was about photography. Gah. A little slow on my part...

Like Leish, I am currently in the market for a DSLR. My Pentax SLR has served me well for the last - god - seven years, but I figure it's time to move on. I was pretty well set on the Nikon D60, but a week or so ago my other half said, offhand, 'It _doesn't_ have live-preview?' and since then I've been in two minds.


----------



## Overread

Live view is overrated in many cases. My 400D has no live preview and I don't miss it - the viewfinder is find to use and when holding the camera up you get a little more support by having the camera close to your eye as opposed to be held out infront,
There are times when it would be nice to have, but also remember that viewing on the screen can be a nightmare if the light is too bright - you just can't see it clear enough.

Thanks for the info Highlander - but I am rather settled into my blog now:

*shameless self promotion*
Overread’s Weblog
and culhwch - take a peek at the picture of the day thread - its now photo spammed


----------



## Highlander II

Overread said:


> Thanks for the info Highlander - but I am rather settled into my blog now:
> 
> *shameless self promotion*
> Overread’s Weblog
> and culhwch - take a peek at the picture of the day thread - its now photo spammed



Hey - I'm only a few months late w/ the suggestions... 

Initially, I'd thought about using my LiveJournal as a photoblog type thing, but that never really panned out.

I've taken a couple classes and had lots of fun processing film and photos, but that's about it.  Though, I did consider heading back to school to get a BA in photography (haven't done that either).


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I would also recommend a Canon. I am hoping to get the Canon XTI (400D) pretty soon with a couple lenses. 

I also think live view is over rated. I think its great with a point and shoot camera, but I think with an SLR it feels more natural to look through the viewfinder.


----------



## Erin99

Well, as for me, I'm open to considering other manufacturers rather than Canon. You know, buying a Fuji 18x zoom, 10mp is also in the running - and it's not a DSLR. Because, since my standard digital camera is dying, I will not have one if I get a DSLR. But if I got the Fuji it's like having a DSLR without it actually being one...


----------



## Highlander II

I just wish I had the $$ for a DSLR!  I love being able to see the shot after it's taken 'immediately' - so you can tell if it's total garbage or not.  I'm picky about my photos and tend to take TOO MANY w/ film.



[also - we've been moved over to the Tech forum... so - continue to be tech-y!]


----------



## ktabic

I've got a Nikon D80 DSLR, which is very nice. Just don't get out and use it often enough. 

Of course, all the expensive kit in the world won't make someone a good photographer if you don't have the eye for a good photo. The best photographer I know personally used something similar but older to that camera Leisha linked to. After she went up to a DSLR the quality went down until she figured out what she was doing with it.


----------



## Highlander II

I'm something of a perfectionist, and then I have 'good' days and 'bad' days w/ my photography 'eye'.  I have a series of photos from Gatecon a couple years ago where I had a GREAT seat and got lots of amazing shots - all in black and white (photography's funny like that - brought back my interest in b&w *g*) - and they are some of the BEST photos I've ever taken.

Then, I have some others that are crap b/c even w/ my superzoom lens - I couldn't make the ppl bigger than ants.


----------



## Overread

yah I find you need to be in the right "mood" to have your creative and photographic eye in - other times there is temptation just to shoot and get it over and done with!


----------



## Culhwch

Overread said:


> Live view is overrated in many cases. My 400D has no live preview and I don't miss it - the viewfinder is find to use and when holding the camera up you get a little more support by having the camera close to your eye as opposed to be held out infront,
> There are times when it would be nice to have, but also remember that viewing on the screen can be a nightmare if the light is too bright - you just can't see it clear enough.


 


Lady of Winterfell said:


> I also think live view is over rated. I think its great with a point and shoot camera, but I think with an SLR it feels more natural to look through the viewfinder.


 
See, that's what I thought before, but there's nothing like someone else's glib remark to put some doubt in your mind. I imagine I'll go with the D60, I've found a good deal with a twin-lens kit, and I've just about saved enough pennies....


----------



## Erin99

Thanks, BTW, to whoever moved this thread! I hoped someone would spot my request. 

As for Live view, I'd say it's not overrated. It's not really meant to be a replacement to the viewfinder. Sure, some people may find it easier than looking through a tiny hole at your picture, but the real point of Live view is for times when you _can't_ see what you're shooting. Personally I find it useful, especially if I'm in the car and taking grab shots at mountains and things out the car window. I certainly wouldn't want to stick my head out too, to peep in the eyepiece. 

It's also useful for checking your composition if you're shooting above your head, say over a tall gate or something. There are many uses.  Plus, the technology was invented by Olympus, and as some of you know I'm the Olympus Queen. I think they're fantastic. Heh.


----------



## Highlander II

My question would be - if it doesn't have Live view, does it have some form of 'preview' (or, rather post-view, in this case) to be able to see the photo you shot?  If not, then, what's the point of the digi-cam?

I ask only b/c I haven't actually been 'shopping' for a DSLR, nor have I seen any that didn't have Live view.



(btw - Leisha - you're welcome.   'twas I what moved the thread.)


----------



## Overread

live view and preview are different things - all DLRS that have an LCD (which is to say all of the) will let you preview and most willl show the shot that you just took from a few seconds after you take it for review - its one of the advantages of digital over the traditional. Also most will let you zoom on the photos on the LCD, but remember the LCD is not of the best image quality so sometimes things look a little different on screen. After that there are many that will also show the histogram of a shot as well - for further help with exposure correcting


----------



## Erin99

Thank you, then, Mr King-Of-The-Chrons. 


And, yes.  The LCD screen on the back of the camera is where you view your photos (or delete them). In some cameras (*cough* the wonderful Olympus, for instance *cough*) the LCD screen can also be used as a viewfinder, like the tiny...uh... _viewfinder_ that all digital and non-digital cameras have.  That's why it's called "Live view", because you can use it to view live images as well as the standard still ones.

Edit: Oh, now I hang my head and shuffle away...  I am too late! Too late, I say!


----------



## Highlander II

psst - I's not a 'mister' - but you are welcome   (no, not offended, it happens all the time - esp'ly on forums that don't have those little pink and blue ppl to tell you one way or the other )


Keeping on topic - ah - now I see... and perhaps, one day, I shall have a spare $1500 for a lovely DSLR... but that day is not today.


----------



## Erin99

Ooh, a woman Highlander? That's cool!  I always see "Highlander" as a bloke because (no, not the film, oddly enough) there was a man on my old photograohy forum whose username was Highlander, and he called himself Doug. Now I associate Highlander with Doug and photography.

And - wait - there are forums with pink and blue icons??? Why have I not seen one?!




> Keeping on topic - ah - now I see... and perhaps, one day, I shall have a spare $1500 for a lovely DSLR... but that day is not today.



There are cheap(er) DSLRs out there, though. Olympuses are good and cheap, since not that many remember them when they think of photography. *grumble grumble* The always think of Canon and Nikon...




Oh, and YAY! That means this Tech forum would have a female Mod. WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!


----------



## Momoka

So then you're back with Olympus as a choice? 

And yay - another vote for Highlander to be our Tech mod. I refuse to say 'girl power' or any such rubbish, however.

But with such infinite good taste in films, how could we not chose you Highlander?  (Also refuses to say 'there can be only one'...)


----------



## Highlander II

None of the forums on Chrons have the pink and blue icons, but some other ones do.  ProBoards has 'em.  vB boards might and Brian may just have that function turned off.


Well, when I bought my Canon SLR, I looked at several cameras and that one had the features I like in a pricepoint I could afford (even then it was like $500, but that's what tax refunds are for *g*).  I don't know if I looked at Olympus.  I may have and it may not have had all the 'stuff' I wanted.


----------



## Erin99

Yes, I am indeed considering the E-510 again, but only because OR - or was it LW? - mentioned that the 400D has an exposure problem. So I reasoned that I may as well learn to live with faults...


And blergh to "girl power". But a woman mod is a cool idea. Not too many women are into geeky stuff.




Edit: Ooh, what features were you looking for, Highlander?


----------



## Overread

Lady mentioned that the 400D had an underexposing problem, but this is common with all DSLRs when compared to traditional SLRs


----------



## Momoka

That and 'soft' images straight from the camera.


----------



## Erin99

Hmmm... so you're not finding it too unmanagable? You don't download your shots and cringe at the way the first look?

I want a DSLR that takes pretty decent shots without too much editing, like my Minolta or Olympus.

Edit: Soft, too, Momo? I didnt know...


----------



## Highlander II

Leisha said:


> Edit: Ooh, what features were you looking for, Highlander?



I honestly don't remember.  I bought that camera about 8 years ago!   But I also have a zoom lens, filters and an additional flash for it.  And, of course, a tripod.  It's about the coolest thing ever.  (and I need to dig it out again and put it to some use before August and my trip.)

I needed to be able to sit eight or ten rows back at a convention, but still be able to take really good photos.  Ye olde point-n-shoot cameras just won't do that.  I was also taking a photography class and wanted a better camera than my Canon P&S (which was a nice little $80 thing, but not functional for the classes),  so I got a more functional one.

I talked to the knowledgeable folks at our local camera shop (a *real* shop, not the wanna be, overpriced types) and the sales person (who I'd spent some time talking to before that), went over several different cameras pointing out features and what not.  Though, I think they have a fondness for Canon.  

I think a lot of it came down to the 'feel' of the camera body and how it sat in my hand when I held it, b/c if it's not a 'good fit', you won't use the camera.


----------



## Overread

well when I first started out it took quite a whilst to edit a shot - now (with the help of RAW I must add) I can get the photo to look much how it should by opening and editing the RAW. From there its a quick levels, followed by curves, followed by saturation (sometimes), followed by noise removal followed by unsharpening. Takes very little time at all.



> I think a lot of it came down to the 'feel' of the camera body and how it sat in my hand when I held it, b/c if it's not a 'good fit', you won't use the camera


on photography forums that is the most common advice for many new people looking for a camera as the differences in brands is not that great - only a real pro will know what they are and how to exploit them (whilst other pros know how to make up for hte differences_


----------



## Erin99

> Though, I think they have a fondness for Canon.


Yes it's amazing how many shops do. I wonder if people are on commission. 

And I always find Olympuses are an excellent fit. Heh.



> well when I first started out it took quite a whilst to edit a shot - now (with the help of RAW I must add) I can get the photo to look much how it should by opening and editing the RAW. From there its a quick levels, followed by curves, followed by saturation (sometimes), followed by noise removal followed by unsharpening. Takes very little time at all.



Hmm.. what about non-RAW? Or does OR not do those? Do you think my images would look soft and underexposed if I shot my landscapes in jpg?


----------



## Overread

actually RAW shots tend to look worse out of camera than JPEGs - but that is because the camera itself has already applied its own editing software to the photos - built in sharpening and contrast change and some others - the the unedited RAWs look softer. However something like photoshop elements, painshop or any other has better programming and filters and such than the camera ever can, which is why people like to start with the RAWs as they get to apply the best sharping to a shot as well as other nice things like changing the exposure and white balance if needed (you can do it all with a JPEG (barring exposure) to good effect, but most of the time it takes longer to do).
Witj your current experience of editing I think you would find RAW understandable and simple to pick up


----------



## Momoka

Leisha said:


> Hmmm... so you're not finding it too unmanagable? You don't download your shots and cringe at the way the first look?


No - if you realise they will always look a little soft/underexposed, and that it is very easy to compensate.

My workflow is levels->contrast->(possible crop/resizing)->unsharp mask->save.

And with regards to jpgs, they already take away some of the work - they are compressed and sharpened in camera, though you can still get away with tweaking levels and contrast without ill effect. So  expect them to look less soft but potentially just as underexposed. It all depends on what settings you used in-camera, for contrast, colour balance, etc.

Your settings aways seem to do a nice job Leish 

EDIT: Bah, you've faster fingers than me, OR


----------



## Erin99

He's the fastest fingers in the west!


Hang on, that would mean he's just a set of fingers... 


Bah! Stoopid flu/cold/annoying thing.


So... this begs the question, what DSLR should I get? I still don't know. I do like Canon and I do like Olympus...

And thatnks for the explanations, guys. Muchly appreciated.


----------



## Momoka

As for which to choose; read up on reviews, check out the specs, look at flickr user groups featuring the chosen camera, and go to a physical camera shop and actually try holding and using it, and take along some of your own cards (be it CF, XD, SD, etc) and ask if you can take sample photos using your own media. At least that way when you return home, you will have both the experience of using each, and some photos to pore over and judge.

Good luck!


----------



## Erin99

Gah! If I look at any more cameras I will see them in my sleep!

Maybe next time I'm uptown I will beg my sister to go with me to Jessops or Dixons, assuming Dribbles can fit in too and that she (my sister, not Dribbles ) doesn't complain about the time or the boringness of cameras. 


Ooh, 1,700 posts!


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Leisha said:


> As for Live view, I'd say it's not overrated. It's not really meant to be a replacement to the viewfinder. Sure, some people may find it easier than looking through a tiny hole at your picture, but the real point of Live view is for times when you _can't_ see what you're shooting. Personally I find it useful, especially if I'm in the car and taking grab shots at mountains and things out the car window. I certainly wouldn't want to stick my head out too, to peep in the eyepiece.
> 
> It's also useful for checking your composition if you're shooting above your head, say over a tall gate or something. There are many uses.  Plus, the technology was invented by Olympus, and as some of you know I'm the Olympus Queen. I think they're fantastic. Heh.


 
I didn't say LiveView wasn't useful.  There have been some friends of mine who didn't want an SLR simply because it didn't have LiveView. It definately does have its uses, and would be nice to have but I will get used to it not being on my new camera. But I didn't know that Olympus invented the technology, good to know.



Overread said:


> Lady mentioned that the 400D had an underexposing problem, but this is common with all DSLRs when compared to traditional SLRs


 


Momoka said:


> That and 'soft' images straight from the camera.


 
I mentioned that I had heard that it had an underexposing problem. I didn't actually have the camera so couldn't say whether it did or not. But after having played with my new one this weekend, I would say that the exposure was pretty good. Didn't notice anything out of the ordinary.

As far as sharpness goes, the nice thing about the xti is that you can change this in camera if you would like. (don't know if you can do this with all SLR's?) Of course, you can always fix it with some editing software as well.  I have so far only used the software that my canon came with, but have been quite happy with it.

And Leish, my sister has an Olympus SLR, and she is really happy with it. I can't remember which model she has though...
And congrats on 1700 posts!!! WooHoo!!!


----------



## Erin99

Thanks. I can see my post count going up even more with a forum like this one. 


And Olympus also invented the dust shake thingy - you know, that LED that lights up for a few seconds as you switch the camera on, to let you know that the anti-dust thingy's shaking the dust from the lens.

I think Olympus are great with developing new technology. They also invented the Four-thirds lens mount, which may one day catch on to other manufacturers. It means that _any_ company can design lenses for an Olympus DSLR, as long as they design it to the Four-thirds system.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Really? Olympus seems to be the most up to date as far as technology goes. And I believe you said they were less expensive as well.


----------



## Erin99

Much! I think I can get a body-only Canon for £300+, yet I can get an Olympus 10MP DSLR with kit lens for £199. 


So now I really am stuck for which one to go for. I mean, if I went for the Olympus E-510 I could get one in 2 weeks!


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Wow!!! That's a big difference. What made you rethink getting an Olympus?


----------



## Erin99

My dad and my sister, mostly. 

When I told my dad I wanted a Canon, his face kind of lost its spark... and I know how much he loves Olympuses, like I do (well, even more, really). And I've had them in the past and I'm very happy with their quality. I just am also very impressed with the Canon...


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Well I knew you wanted an Olympus before, I just wondered what made you start thinking about the Canon.

I thought I saw somewhere where you said that you found out something about the Olympus you didn't like, but then you also heard something about the Canon you didn't like, so you went back to thinking about the Olympus. (hopefully that all makes sense )


----------



## Erin99

That would be this post from a couple of pages ago:



Leisha said:


> Yes, I am indeed considering the E-510 again, but only because OR - or was it LW? - mentioned that the 400D has an exposure problem. So I reasoned that I may as well learn to live with faults...



Yeah, my sister told me the model I'm after, the E-510 - and the model before it - have a strange colour cast and they blow the highlights in images. Apparently some people are unhappy with the cameras, especially when compared to other similar-spec cameras. So then I thought of OR's camera, since he always takes good shots. But you'd pointed out that it sometimes underexposes the whites...

So now I suppose I could pick either. *ponders* Or I might even find another manufacturer, like Nikon or Pentax or Sony.


----------



## Culhwch

Actually, speaking of rethinking, I'm now considering the Pentax K200D. I like what I've read about it, I've used a Pentax film SLR for seven or eight years, and it's about five hundred bucks cheaper than the Nikon D60...


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I think each camera is going to have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on what the maker (canon, nikon, olympus, etc) decide is the most important. 

I haven't really noticed the underexposure, which is what I had heard was the biggest knock against the Canon. Perhaps they have addressed it from the first camera's that came out a couple years ago. Not really sure.

Wow Culhwch! That's quite a bit. Of course, Canon and Nikon are usually at the top of the price range.


----------



## Culhwch

I've noticed in reading a lot of reviews over the last month or so that, yes, every camera is going to have its weaknesses, but generally they are quite slight, in that the professionals doing the reviews will pick them up (because it's their job, after all) but to the amateur or enthusiast it's not going to be such a big deal... And five hundred is a big difference. I have enough now to buy the Nikon if I wanted to, but I'm just having trouble justifying spending that much. And if I save that five hundred, it means my wife can upgrade her compact sooner than we had planned.


----------



## Erin99

I thought I'd announce my choice. Leish has thunk D) well and hard about this, and she's decided the camera for her is....



Ahem.


...the Olympus E-510! 


Yes, I had a look at a load of websites and read all the bumf and I still love it. Plus, as it says on this site - Olympus E-510 Digital SLR - TrustedReviews - it beats any other entry-level camera on the market.


Now I just need to have the money...


----------



## The Ace

Sorry, I remember Olympus' OM-series, great lenses, mediocre cameras.


----------



## Erin99

There's always one. 


People can't believe the quality of the kit lenses now, in fact. The other camera I was looking at - the Canon 400D - is criticised for having a weak kit lens. But the Olympus comes with 2 quality lenses. I can't wait to try them out.

Olympus E-510 - Digital Camera Reviews & Photography Tips


Olympus E-510 Digital SLR - TrustedReviews


----------



## Overread

you sure I can't tempt you to canon 
yah - kit lens - I think mine is gathering dust!
only kidding - good luck with raising the money - I recomend bank robbing for quick cash (provided you don't get caught)

And it can't hurt to mention this:
Official Mentors Bio list - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum
I set this up in another forum and thought that such a system my be beneficial to some here as we have few people new to using SLRs!


----------



## Erin99

Don't even _start_ me on Canon again! I still keep thinking of yours and Lady's pictures. 


But I must resist! Olympus is the brand for me!


About the mentors thing - there aren't that many here who could offer "apprenticeships", if you will. I think most of us are learning together. Unless others think differently?

For a start, who other than Ace or AE could mentor?


----------



## Wybren

Wow OR, Impressive, Are you sure your in the right discipline with your studies?

I, like Loopy here, have decided on the Olympus e-510. Everything I have seen on them has been positive, and I like that the lens kit lenses are of a really good standard. All things going well I should have one in about 4 weeks. And as TM now is really getting into taking photos means I can take him with me and we can both take photos. (sure his photos tend to be of feet and shoes and the tv but still, cant hurt for him to learn at a young age)


----------



## Overread

Its not the camera that takes good photos = its the person behind the camera 
ahh I just organised it - don't expect me to actually know anything 

ahh sorry - its late and I am half awake - I meant that that site and that mentor system might be beneficial to some here - 
*shameless ad bot hides*


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Leisha: Are Olympus still as light as they used to be. I used to have a OM10 way back. It had digital back in the seventies (it time stamped the negative)

I was just wondering as my Cannon EOS (film) ways a ton.


----------



## Erin99

OR wants others to join his forum. 


You are tired? That's two days OR is sleepy... You okay?


Wy, you'll get your camera before me!!!  I'll have enough in...uh... a few...ish... weeks... probably longer, since I want the package with _two_ kit lenses.




Edit: TEiN, yes!!! They are so light and easy to use! My dad and sister both have Olympus DSLRs, although different models. That's one of the bonuses of Olympus: the light weight.


----------



## Overread

meh - today I had to dig a channel for a hose - plus I think I caught your cold - add that to hayfever and I get drained out rather quick ( I always find that hayfever drains me of energy)


----------



## Wybren

Well I said all things going well. I am counting on my tax check and other government rebates and what not, week after next I earn half my camera money in the toysale. But then I also have the lecticity bill too.

Oh yeah Hayfever is horrid, do you have zyrtec there? I always find Zytec helps with mine.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh

Leisha: Thanks for that. Trouble is I don't get time to take photos much nowadays. Ah well....


----------



## Erin99

> meh - today I had to dig a channel for a hose - plus I think I caught your cold - add that to hayfever and I get drained out rather quick ( I always find that hayfever drains me of energy)




Oh, I'm sorry! 


*tries not to breathe, lest she contaminate others*

Well, my cold's almost gone, other than my ears sounding all funny and muffled, and my nose and throat bothering me.

Hayfever does indeed suck, though. But digging sounds fun! If I'd been in Suffolk, you'd have found an interloper digging up your garden too! 

I helped make a pond once. 'Twas fun indeed! And then frogs came to live in the bog garden... 



Edit: Whoa! All these replies appeared! Stop typing so fast! Loopy still isn't up to her normal speed!


----------



## Wybren

Did you find any artefacts in your digging? will we see your back yard on time team?


----------



## Overread

you could go solar in OZ wy! enough sunlight for it 

I gave up with the pills and whatnot - I never found that they really did much good - I still had a red nose and iching eyes. Being near the seaside I have found to be a bigger help (I managed to weed a garden near the coast without dieing last year!) shame home is right in the middle of suffolk!
TEIN - come on we need to see some stuff now - new or old its all new to us


----------



## Erin99

> Oh yeah Hayfever is horrid, do you have zyrtec there? I always find Zytec helps with mine.



I've never heard of that. I used to use Clarityn, but it didn't do much. Now I only use Beconaise.


And TEiN, you should take photos on the weekend, or on a night. Some good sunsets lately...


----------



## Wybren

Well, I do have part of my lectricity coming from renewable resources but as we rent we have no option to convert to solar. Mum lived in a house that wholy solar, with a back up generator. Its not good if you like technology. Mum had to turn all the lights off to get the computer to work properly.


----------



## Erin99

> Mum had to turn all the lights off to get the computer to work properly.




 So she types happily but then gets eye strain? 


And now, folks, I am off. I can't wait to see the pics from your Olympus, Wy. I'll be counting down the days until you get paid.


----------



## Wybren

Well She did, her new house though is plugged in to the mains, which is good considering all the gadgets and doodads they have.


----------



## Overread

true - you do need a large amount of space for solar cells to be worth really investing in - plus a good storage system for storing the energy
Though (to being things back on track ) I have read of several people using small solar cell set-ups to carry around on their backpacks when camping so that they can have their camera on all day and recharge a spare battery as well - good when you are out in the wilds and limited in pugs sockets  *not to mention reviewing on the LCD more to try and cull really bad shots to save on space as well(


----------



## Wybren

Yes I have heard about people doing that.

Here the government has a small monetary incentive to entice people to convert but it is not enough for the average person. Mum had no choice where she was though, cause the owner did not want to pay the $50 000 to connect the place to the mains. It was a nice property though, I think it was about 30 acres. The dogs loved it.


----------



## The Ace

That's nothing new, OR.  Selenium cell light meters are solar powered, and what about the Ricoh XR-S ?


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Leisha said:


> I thought I'd announce my choice. Leish has thunk well and hard about this, and she's decided the camera for her is....
> 
> 
> 
> Ahem.
> 
> 
> ...the Olympus E-510!


 
Another one goes to the dark side.  I'm just kidding!!!!!  My sister has an Olympus and loves it.

Yea!!!! Leish made a decision!!  I'm sure your going to love it Leish, when you get it. I only got mine because we got our tax rebate check, otherwise I would still be waiting...and waiting. 

And Wyb too!!  So now Wyb and Leish will have the same camera, and OR and I will have the same camera. Apparently Canon and Olympus are popular here at Chrons.


----------



## Ursa major

So there's no possibility that Loopy-Kit might change her mind during the saving up period, then?


----------



## Overread

true - no evil nikons about at all


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

LOL! Yes, no Nikons...that is good.  That really would be the dark side.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I had a question for anyone really, does anyone here use Photoshop? I am wondering if there is a good book out there telling you how to use it and the different features it has.


----------



## chrispenycate

Which version of Photoshop?
Here in the studio I've got Photoshop 5.5, 6.0, 8.1 and 10 point whatever, some on Macs, some on PCs, and they all work differently, even if the basic philosophy carries over.

But it's very much a 'play with it' style of program – work out what you want to do, then there are probably three or four different different paths to achieve the result.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

It's Photoshop CS3. I tried playing around with it last night, its just a bit daunting.  I do like all the things you can do with RAW photos though. Mine is on a PC.


----------



## chrispenycate

Ah, yes, that's the one in the Mac G5, in the graphics room. Not one I've played with much, and all my instructions are in French (as are menus and everything, so the equivalence between 'layers' and 'calques' for example has to be worked out from context. Fun, what?)

But I'm an audio specialist; perhaps better versed in graphics will turn up.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Yeah, I will be using it mostly for photography, making my photos look spectacular!  Well, trying to anyway....


----------



## Wybren

I got to play with the E-520 yesterday, It was brilliant, very light and easy to handle. and only $100 more for the twin lens kit than the E-510


----------



## The Ace

Doesn't it come with a manual LoW ?

   For DSLRs, I'm tempted to go for the Samsung GX-1L, it's cheap, has a depth-of-field preview (why else would you buy an SLR) and takes K-mount lenses, for some unknown reason, I have a fair few of those.


----------



## Erin99

I always considered you a Pentax man, you know. I don't know why.




And no, no chance of Loopy changing her mind; she's adamant the Olympus is her soulmate.  But I still say Nikons are not that bad!!! Oh, and Lady, OR knows a fair few things in (pah!) Photoshop. He does some great editing with it. I've used it in the past, but I always found it too slow and cumbersome.




> I got to play with the E-520 yesterday, It was brilliant, very light and easy to handle. and only $100 more for the twin lens kit than the E-510


YAYAYAY! I'd love to get my hands on one of those. Does that mean you might be getting the 520 instead? Blimey.

*clunk*


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I'm sure they do, but mine..uh...didn't.  Besides, I would like to get a book with color pictures that walks you through the steps and shows you what it should look like, etc.

I take it your not a big fan of Photoshop Leish.  Do you use a different program then?


----------



## Overread

Ace - most programs these days have usless manuals -my copy of photoshop elements came in a large box - inside was a DVD box and nothing else but a CD no manual at all (and the built in help is worse than the blurb on the back of the box )

Hmm 
Sharpening -- Part I
one of a number of articles on that site which are informative and easy to understand and go through photoshop editing methods 
Juza Nature Photography
look in the nature photography section on that site for some good (canon! ) advice and also some post production tips as well - even if its not nature you are doing the skills can carry over.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I have noticed that many things now come with a CD-ROM that is the manual as well. This is good for quick searching of what you're looking for, but I still prefer having an actual paper copy.

Thanks OR, I will check those out.


----------



## Erin99

There's always Photoshop for Dummies: Amazon.co.uk: Photoshop CS3 for Dummies (For Dummies): Peter Bauer: Books


I prefer Corel Paint Shop Pro - so much easier and quicker! It used to load far, far quicker than Photoshop, but now they seem to take a similar length. But I prefer the layout and previews in PSP. 



Edit: And there's this one, too: Amazon.co.uk: Adobe Photoshop CS3 Classroom in a Book (Classroom in a Book (Adobe)): Adobe Creative Team: Books


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Thanks Leish! I am hoping to go to the bookstore this weekend so I can look at some, then I will come home and buy it from Amazon as they are usually much cheaper.


----------



## The Ace

The Ace said:


> Maybe I'll stick to my pentax and 135mm f2.8 a while longer.




Ummmm, because I told you ?


----------



## Overread

There are a few books out there Lady - surf on amazon for some, but personally I have picked up loads of tips and advice on photoforums (dedicated ones). 
Some areas I would recomend looking into are:
Sharpening and the unsharpen mask - also note Juza's method of preparing for a web post and resizing and then sharpening (unsing unsharpen mask) in starges to keep sharpness quality.
You are in RAW so play around with the white balance settings to get different looks - mostly I would say if you boost the temperature don't forget to lower the tint or the photo takes on a reddish haze
Levels - auto levels can really boost the quality of a shot, but also look into how photoshop edits levels to get a little more control at certain times
Noise removal
Brightness, saturation, colour curves (only started using these myself) are also good areas to edit in.

further don't edit sharpness or noise removal in RAW editing - it tends to give worse results than the photoshop based edits


----------



## The Ace

Leisha said:


> I always considered you a Pentax man, you know. I don't know why.



See above.


----------



## Erin99

> Thanks Leish! I am hoping to go to the bookstore this weekend so I can look at some, then I will come home and buy it from Amazon as they are usually much cheaper.



 I do that. Or I get second-hand books from Amazon, if money's tight.


Taken any more pictures? No one's uploaded photos to the picture thread for.... ooh... at least a day. I hear the thread crying in protest.



And I agree with others: much of Photoshop can be learned from mssing about in the program. Just go to the various menus and play about. You'll soon find out what works and what doesn't. That's how I always learn software.





> Ummmm, because I told you ?



Doh! Well, I forgot about that post. But I see you as someone who prefers the lesser-known makes rather than Canon and Nikon...


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I tried to take some pictures the other night of the moon, but they didn't come out at all. I have a 300 mm lens, but that wasn't long enough, even with the 1.6x conversion factor. But other than that, no not yet. But I'm hoping to go this weekend! Not sure where though, its going to be terribly hot this weekend. 

Yes, I learned how to work the RAW stuff in Photoshop by just playing around, so I will probably do that with the rest of the program as well. It would just be nice to have something to reference as well.


----------



## Erin99

I tried the moon with my 10x Olympus lens and I got this tiny blob on a blue background... 

Our weekend's supposed to be wet and cold, so I won't be out. Do you have animal parks or zoos nearby? You get some great shots there, with lions and tigers and otters and stuff.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Exactly! It was itty bitty. 

Right now I wish it was going to be wet and cold, tomorrow is supposed to be 110 degrees! Which is kinda why I don't want to be outside. Actually, last weekend we went to the zoo, that's where two of the pics I posted were from. Just a lot of the animals weren't out because it was so hot.


----------



## Erin99

110! 


I melt in 80+. Then again, I freeze easily too. But I never really considered that animals wouldn't come out _because it was so hot_. We dont get that problem here, thankfully.

Where do you live? Is there a city nearby? You could try aking photos of building. Sometimes they're pretty: thatched timber-framed - Google Image Search (non-city pictures )


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

You're lucky then.  They all just hide in their shelters during the day, and that's when the zoo is open. It's really only a problem in the summertime though.

I live in Tucson, which is a pretty large city. I think it plus all the surrounding areas have like 900,000 people. And if we had cool buildings like that I would, but we don't unfortunately. Mostly everything here is concrete and steel buildings. I suppose I could go downtown and try to take some pics of the buildings there, they have a little more character. 

Although, there is this building type, San xavier del bac , which would be pretty nice I think.


----------



## Overread

hmm Lady you could try appearing at the zoo (camera in hand - take a tripod as well) and inquire about getting in early. I know a few photographers do this and most of the time its simple enough - though many a time the zoo might ask to see your work beforehand (to prove that you can hold a camera) and they might also request copies of the photos from the day.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I could try that. If you are a member of the Zoological society, I think they let you go in at 7:30 am when they are feeding the animals, so I could possibly do that as well. We have a desert museum here as well, which has only desert animals in it, so they are used to the heat and they come out a little more I think. Perhaps I will go there soon too.


----------



## Overread

not only might the animals be more active, but also you get better light generally - when I went to Whipsnade the day started (6am) bright with clear blue skies - by the time I was at the zoo and the doors opened it was overcast with patchy sun......

oh and dont' forget to UNDEREXPOSE when in the sunlight - though I think living where you are you will have picked up this a bit already


----------



## Erin99

Whoa! Those san xavier del bac pictures are lovely! I'd take photos of them, definitely.

And I didn't know photographers could get in early at zoos! You mean I could go earlier if I showed them my camera?


Hmmmmm.....




Some days here I have to underexpose. Usually when I'm shooting clouds.


----------



## Overread

Its not a garentee, but its something to try - remember the zoo opens much earlier for work - cleaning and so forth - so there are staff about, but they don't officially open till later. I suppose photographers (least proper ones ) are one of the least likley to get in the way of things - rather than a family with kids (of which one will want the currently locked toilet upon entering )
I think you would need a good argument or a lucky day to get in with a point and shoot camera, but if you look pro they are more likley to consider letting you in I suspect


----------



## Erin99

A point and shoot camera is better than a point and shoot gun thrusted at them. 

But I doubt I could try to get in early anyway. My parents always take me places, and I doubt they'd let my family in - although my dad uses a DSLR!

And.. um... there's the itty bitty question of early meaning _I'd have to get up_!!! 

Plus, the rate petrol is increasing in price, my dad won't be able to afford travelling soon.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Oh, the lighting here during the day is terrible. Most of the shots of the animals that were out came out bad, but oh well.

Yeah, I'm not much of a morning person myself. 

Yeah, maybe I'll go to San Xavier in the next couple weekends. Just don't expect my pictures to come out quite like that.


----------



## Overread

do you mean bad as in overexposed = all whited out?


----------



## The Ace

Leisha, in the days of MF, 80% of SLR sales were of the 'Big Five,'  Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax.

While the Canon F1/F1n and Nikon F had the pro market sewn up, many amateurs preferred the likes of the Pentax Me-Super (at one point the top-selling SLR in the world)  , Minolta X700 (First ever European camera of the year) and the Olympus OM-series ( I never liked them, but some did).


Practically all MF SLRs (apart from Olympus) can trace their control layout to the Asahi Pentax which, although offering nothing new _per se, _had a rewind crank at the extreme left, pentaprism in the middle with a detatchable hot-shoe, single shutter-speed dial on the right, shutter release to the right and forward and a self-zeroing frame counter incorporated into the rapid wind lever on the extreme right.

The specification included an instant-return mirror, a self-timer on the front plate and a rewind release button on the baseplate.  The first time all of these features had been incorporated in a single camera body.


----------



## Erin99

Hmmm... I recall my dad having a Practika camera at one point... I'm not sure whether it was an SLR, though.

He also love Pentaxes - keeps saying if I get a Pentax DSLR I can have his lenses. 

So do you collect SLRs as well as point-and-shoot ones? Have you tried most of those top five?


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Yeah, some were overexposed, but it was midday too, so the light was coming straight down, not good. I'll see if I can post an example......


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Here's one that is quite overexposed, but you can see where the light was coming from too....I haven't even tried correcting this one, so this is right out of the camera.


----------



## Overread

yah I know that effect to help do this:
When shooting in ap or tv mode (Aperture and shutter priority modes) set the exposure compensation to -1 - that should help preserve the details in the whites from blowing out when in direct sunlight - you can then brighten things up later in editing.
If you are in manual mode, just set the settings so that the exposure meter is to -1 to get the same effect


----------



## Highlander II

Depending on the camera, you can also set it to photo at one step down, right on and one step above w/o changing anything - it takes 3 shots in a row.  My Canon does that and I've used it a couple times.

Of course, you can do the same thing yourself, manually, it's just harder to stay still when you have to make the adjustments on your own.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Thanks OR, I'll remember that. I do know its easier to get the details out of underexposed images, as opposed to overexposed ones where the details are usually gone and irrecoverable. 

I think I'll try some bracketing next time too.

Edit: Yeah, Highlander, my Canon can do that as well. So now I know I should try bracketing next time, it does save from having to manually do it each time.


----------



## Highlander II

yes - 'bracketing' - I'm having a vocabularly slump here lately.  I'm out of photo-practice!  Need to get back in before my trip to Gatecon.  Can't have my shots of Richard Dean Anderson coming out badly, now can I?


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

No worries, I am only recently back into the photo world. Been studying up (or trying to anyway) so that's why I could remember the word. 

Definately not!


----------



## Erin99

Ooh, Stargate fan? 



I love taking bracketing shots. I really should use my tripod for them, though, since I use them for creating HDR images. But it's a handy feature, only on my Minolta I have to set the "continuous shooting" mode, then also the .5 exposure feature - and usually I forget one of the two and end up with identical shots that I can't turn into HDRs (since I shoot in jpg, not RAW).


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

What is an HDR shot?


----------



## Highlander II

Ah yes, I am a Stargate fan!  Strictly *b/c* of Mr. RDA.  

I've been to 4 Gatecon's and my fave photo to date is from one of them!

It's JR Bourne and Corin Nemec under a handmade quilt being auctioned at the charity auction:


----------



## Wybren

Leisha said:


> YAYAYAY! I'd love to get my hands on one of those. Does that mean you might be getting the 520 instead? Blimey.
> 
> *clunk*



Well if there is only $100 difference I don't see why not.


----------



## Culhwch

The Ace said:


> Leisha, in the days of MF, 80% of SLR sales were of the 'Big Five,' Canon, Olympus, Nikon, Minolta and Pentax...


 
Wow, I didn't think there was any love for Pentaxes in the room, considering the deafening silence that greeting my mention of K100D earlier.

On kit lenses and what-not - my main sticking point at the moment is that the Nikon I'm looking at has a twin lens kit (18-55/55-200), while the Pentax only has the one (18-50). Is it worth looking for a twin lens package, or is it better to hold off and pick up other lenses seperately. I see that OR at the least has disdain for kit lenses...


----------



## Overread

Not a distain so much as my kit is just not what I am after from a lens (it won't zoom enough ). I think kit lenses are great for learning on and I know I learn't a lot with mine, but I find it limiting in most cases - I would also hazzard and say that I find shot from it darker then from my sigma - not sure if it is just me or the lens.
I think that when you are looking for lenses you have to consider 2 things
1) how much money you have now
2) how much you are willing to spend in the future on lenses and how quickly you will be able to get them

If you have pots of cash now then work out what set of lenses you need to allow you to photograph what you want. If funds are tight now and will be for a long time then I would go for a twin kit lens set-up or get a budget lens to allow you to at least get closer to what you want and save when you can. If funds are short now but in a year you will be getting a massive lump from that investment or something then I would hold off on cheap lenses now and get them later.
I think you get my point now? Its all about how you view the hobby as well - for some the idea of spending £1000 on a lens is just too much for them to justify for a hobby - for others it is not so work out where you stand and go from there


----------



## The Ace

Samsung DSLRS are re-badged Pentax.  The K-100D isn't bad at all.  Also you can use pentax mount 35mm lenses with it.


Leisha, Praktica invented the M42, 'Pentax screw,' and their MTL 5 and its clones probably got half the world's photographers into SLRs, the other half cutting their teeth on Zenits.

While nothing special, the screw-mount Prakticas were good, solid beginner's SLRs.

The bayonet Prakticas were superb, but unjustly overlooked, partly because of the rare lens mount.


----------



## Culhwch

The Ace said:


> Samsung DSLRS are re-badged Pentax. The K-100D isn't bad at all. Also you can use pentax mount 35mm lenses with it.


 
Ah, oops, meant K200D. I didn't know about the Samsung thing though. And I do have the lens off my old MZ50 that should fit, but at 28-70 it's not a whole lot different to the kit lens.

Decisions, decisions.


----------



## The Ace

The kit 18-55mm does a similar job, but its shorter because the sensor's smaller than a 35mm negative.  28mm is pretty close to a standard lens on digital and my old 50mm f1.7 will be a fast portrait lens.


----------



## Erin99

Lady of Winterfell said:


> What is an HDR shot?



Ahhh, good question! They are BRILLIANT! HDR stands for "High Dynamic Range", and it means combining several images of varying exposures, so that the final image has every part - the foreground, background, infinity, etc - of equal tone and detail. For example, when you shoot into the sky on a bright day, you'll usually find your foreground is dark if you've taken a standard shot without altering your aperture.


Take this shot as a good example of HDR: Image:Colour Explosion.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, isn't it? 


High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And great news, Wy! I haven't looked what the benefits the E-520 has over the E-510. But it'll be fun comparing shots when we get our cameras! 



			
				Culhwch said:
			
		

> Wow, I didn't think there was any love for Pentaxes in the room, considering the deafening silence that greeting my mention of K100D earlier.


Don't take it personally on my part: I don't know all that much about the models you suggested, so I stay quiet - unless I have something useful to add. But my dad always had good things to say about Pentaxes.


----------



## Wybren

I cant remember what is different between the two of them. The shop I went into though, said the E-510 were end of line with them so I don't know if I could get one through them by the time I have enough, but at HT there is still one in stock and is not flying out the door so if that goes to clearance at a discount I will probably still get the e-510 because it will come down to less than $1000aud. Here though too the twin lens kit is $300 less than the single lens kit. Dunno if that is the same elsewhere though.


----------



## Erin99

The double is _less_??? I haven't checked for the E-520, but I know that's certainly not the case with the E-510. I wish it were...


----------



## Highlander II

I have photos to share! bwahahahaha!  

These were taken tonight w/ my little point-and-shoot Sony digi cam.  The first several are on, I have no idea what setting b/c I didn't change it before I started shooting.  The last few (starting w/ the one that I've embedded) were done on the 'twilight' setting w/ no flash, which is why they look so much better!

They're kinda large, so I'll embed one and link to the others:

er - please to be ignoring the light pole, the folks who set off the fireworks seem to think that the stadium lighting fixture should be part of the show, or something...






http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-001.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-002.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-003.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-004.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-005.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-006.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-007.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-008.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-009.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-011.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-012.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-013.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-014.png
http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-015.png


----------



## Alurny

Probably a good place to post this....

I am off to Silverstone (the Grand Prix) for my Birthday in a couple of weeks time. I really want to invest in a camera to have some memoirs from the trip.

Now, having not owned a camera for, oooh about 7 years, I have totally missed out on all this digitalness. I am looking for something under £80, with a good reputation. Obviously doesn't have to be too fancy, but it seems we have some knowlegable people here to help


----------



## Wybren

I cant say what the cost of things are in the UK but I can recommend if you are just after a point and shoot one, Canon are very good.
Try checking the Powershot A470 or the A580, which in australian prices convert to around the 80 pound mark.

Leish
ht.com.au | Olympus E-510 - Digital camera - SLR - 10.0 Mpix - Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm and 40-150mm lenses - optical zoom: 3 x - supported memory: CF, xD-Picture Card, Microdrive, xD Type H, xD Type M

ht.com.au | Olympus E-510 - Digital camera - SLR - 10.0 Mpix - Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm lens - optical zoom: 3 x - supported memory: CF, xD-Picture Card, Microdrive, xD Type H, xD Type M


----------



## Culhwch

That is bizarre, Wyb. You sure it isn't an error? I'd double-check, because it makes absolutely no sense. Although it might not be something you want to bring to their attention if it is a mistake. At least, not until after you benefit...


----------



## Wybren

Oh no it is correct, I have double and triple checked, it is not an error. It is the same in other shops as well, not just HT. I think it is because they sell more twin lens kits than single lens kits so they can afford to sell them cheaper.


----------



## Culhwch

I've never seen that with any of the other brands in the few months I've been looking. Pity, really, or I might already have bought something... You'd think they just wouldn't bother carrying the single lens kit, then. What's the point? Very odd.


----------



## Wybren

Teds cameras have the single lens Canon 450d more expensive than the twin lens 450d. What is surprising to me is that HT sell heaps of Canon stuff but not any of the DSLRs.


----------



## Erin99

LOL! I _so_ can't believe two lenses are chapear than one! 

However, if you check the site below site, it says the E-510 body is _more_ than the camera + lens. 

Camera Price Buster - Olympus Digital SLRs


And I like this shot, Highlander: http://photographybyh2.h2smsk.com/baseball/Fireworks/06-21-08-015.png


----------



## Culhwch

Wybren said:


> Teds cameras have the single lens Canon 450d more expensive than the twin lens 450d. What is surprising to me is that HT sell heaps of Canon stuff but not any of the DSLRs.


 
I was looking at the 450D but it's a bit out of my price range. I've all but settled on the Pentax, now. If I only I could find a twin-lens kit cheaper than the single. Actually, if only I could find a twin-lens kit at all.


----------



## Erin99

Are you looking at Pentax lenses only, or have you tried Sigma and Tamron? Sigma is sometimes okay, and they're far cheaper than the big branded makes. 


And ditto about considering a 450D. Price is waaaay too much.


----------



## Culhwch

Leisha said:


> Are you looking at Pentax lenses only, or have you tried Sigma and Tamron? Sigma is sometimes okay, and they're far cheaper than the big branded makes.
> 
> 
> And ditto about considering a 450D. Price is waaaay too much.


 
Well, the camera comes with a Sigma, then I'll look at getting another lens in a few months. Brand will probably will depend on the price, in the end. I'll be in no hurry, so I'll keep an eye out for specials.


----------



## Erin99

And don't trust those stores on the high street that claim they can match and beat any price! I once went into Jessops and showed them a super cheap price for a camera I wanted. They made the necessary (long) phone call to check my printout was real, then came back and announced they couldn't match my price - _even though they promised they could match and beat ANY price!!!_


Silly people. So now I always shop online.


Good luck in the hunt, anyway.


----------



## Culhwch

I've never had the courage to do that, actually, even where they say they will price-match. I usually just find the place with the cheapest price and buy from them.

And I'm a little wary about buying online - at least, for something like a camera. I think it is my innate distrust of the postal service. Besides, I've not seen it cheaper online anyways, so it's off to the store for me.


----------



## Erin99

Well, normally I hate speaking to store clerks to ask things (especially because men tend to talk down to me, which makes me get nervous and upset, which in turn makes me forget all I know), but that time I was buying a camera for a family member's birthday, so I printed my sheet out and went in.

And you've really never found it cheaper online? Blimey. I haven't found a high street shop who's beaten an online price for years! And if, for some reason, the parcel didn't arrive, I'm sure the company would replace it for you.


----------



## Overread

Culhwch is there not an amazon in Oz - or some equivalent type of store that you could look through?

After that one trick is as Leisha tried - print out and ask - the worst they can say is no


----------



## Culhwch

Actually, I've sourced a twin-lens kit (plus extended warranty) through an online retailer for around the price of the single in-store, so I'll probably be placing my order tonight. With luck I'll have it by this weekend!


----------



## Erin99

Alurny said:


> Probably a good place to post this....
> 
> I am off to Silverstone (the Grand Prix) for my Birthday in a couple of weeks time. I really want to invest in a camera to have some memoirs from the trip.
> 
> Now, having not owned a camera for, oooh about 7 years, I have totally missed out on all this digitalness. I am looking for something under £80, with a good reputation. Obviously doesn't have to be too fancy, but it seems we have some knowlegable people here to help



Sorry to get to this post a little late. Fuji have a reputation for excellent photo quality and lifelike colours, and you can get some fantastic zooms on some of them, too, cheaply. Also, Olympus is a make I recommend to all. My very first camera was a Olympus C-750UZ, and I still have it now. I love their ease of use and the quality of their shots.

Here's some cheap places to consider looking at:

Camera Price Buster - UKs cheapest camera gear

Bristol Cameras Online for Digital, SLR and Camera Lenses

7dayshop.com - Online shopping made easy !

Amazon.co.uk: low prices in Electronics, Books, Music, DVDs & more

Warehouse Express - Camera Accessories and Lenses, Photography Equipment, Canon, Nikon Digital Cameras

Park Cameras

Pixmania: Digital Cameras, Camcorders, IT products, MP3, Telephones, Home appliances - online High Tech shop UK

Camerabox | The Professionals Choice For Casio Canon Fuji Kodak Konica Minolta Lexar Nikon Olympus Panasonic Samsung Sigma Sony Digital Cameras

There are others, but I can't think of them right now.



------------------------------------------


Oh, I hope they're great, Cul! And I just found a camera place in Australia: http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/store/


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Hello fellow photo fans.  I had an idea and I wanted to see if anyone would be interested. Seeing as we have lots of budding photographers here I thought it might be fun to have a monthly "photo challenge". If anyone is interested, then I'll start a new thread for it. 

I was thinking each month we could have certain basic criteria/theme, and then we can submit some shots we take that month that meet it. For example, say one month it is 'black and white', then you can shoot any type of picture, just as long as its black and white. Or maybe 'Flowers' so your shot needs to include flowers somewhere. There are other websites that do this as a photo contest, but I thought it would be more fun if it was just a challenge, no winner or loser. We can just take the shots and post them up, and you can post as many as you want. 

Anyways, let me know what you guys think and if you think its a good idea I'll go ahead and start it.  

It would of course be open to everyone, doesn't matter what type of camera you have, DLSR, point and shoot, camera phone, etc.


----------



## Highlander II

LoW - I like this idea a lot.  

I'm game for it... lovely way to get creative.  (as in, I had an assignment once to take a self-portrait photo, and as I despise having my photo taken, I took a shot of my shadow on a lake)


----------



## Overread

Yep - another signing on for a photography section..


oh wait I mean the photo challenge


----------



## Momoka

Lady of Winterfell said:


> I thought it might be fun to have a monthly "photo challenge". If anyone is interested, then I'll start a new thread for it.


YES! What a great idea LoW. Count me in - I think that would be wonderful. I need inspiration and to widen my skills so challenges like that would be perfect 


> It would of course be open to everyone, doesn't matter what type of camera you have, DLSR, point and shoot, camera phone, etc.


Most definitely it wouldn't matter what type of camera you have - I've seen the most inspirational and creative shots, and they've been taken with camera phones and point-and-shoot cameras. At the end of the day, it's the person holding the camera and their talent that makes the picture as good or bad as it is.

I can't wait to see what people would come up with


----------



## Erin99

Only popped on for a moment - but, sure, sign me up! Seems to be the "in thing".


----------



## Wybren

Oh what a brilliant idea!! count me in.


----------



## Culhwch

I'm in, too. We starting in July? I should have my camera by then, all things going well. Who decides on the theme?


----------



## Erin99

Wybren and I should have our DSLRs in just over 4 weeks, so whenever _that_ is...


----------



## Culhwch

Well, I was hoping to have mine tomorrow, but I'm having issues ordering it. Stupid bank. It would have been nice, too, because I have a three-day weekend this weekend, and only a one-day weekend next weekend when I'm most likely to have it. But then, I'll have another long weekend after _that_, so as long as I get it by then I'll be happy.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Oh yeah!!! I'm glad you all are so excited about it. 

I'll get right to work posting the first one up. I'll post one now, and then another one in the beginning of July (since June is almost over). But we can drag the June one over into July since we are just starting out.  Oh yea, I'm quite excited! 

And Leish, you and Wyb can use the camera's you have now until you get your new ones.  As long as you can get a picture up, it works! Do you have a camera you can use in the meantime Culhwch?

As for the topics, I've been writing a couple down since this morning. If anyone else has ideas feel free to list them or PM me. We could always have a vote towards the end of the month for the next month's theme. Or if you want to be surprised I can just start a new thread each month, or we could rotate through members and each month a new member picks the theme.

Alright, must get started!!


----------



## Erin99

> Well, I was hoping to have mine tomorrow, but I'm having issues ordering it. Stupid bank. It would have been nice, too, because I have a three-day weekend this weekend, and only a one-day weekend next weekend when I'm most likely to have it. But then, I'll have another long weekend after that, so as long as I get it by then I'll be happy.



If you've any holidays saved up that need taking, perhaps you can book some times off and go out. It's not like the waether holds you back, unlike over here. 

Looking forward to seeing some shots of Australia, though. I've never been out of this country, so everywhere else is fascinating to me.



Edit: Hello, Lady! Sure, I'll use the camera I have now, if it doesn't die on me for good. 

I'm pretty excited about this, too. It'd be nice if members _could_ vote for a favourite image, though, then it'd make the competition worthwhile: something to aim for.


----------



## Culhwch

I wouldn't mind a vote, I don't think anyone here is likely to get sore if they don't win. We're all quite mature, even if sometimes it doesn't seem that way...

And I liek the idea of rotating who chooses the theme, as well. Perhaps if we keep a list of participants, and then just scroll through them?


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Hiya Leish! 

Well if everyone wants to vote, than that is fine with me.  But I think we should post as many pics as we want, not just one picture per theme. Perhaps we could all take and post as many pics as we want, and then choose one towards the end of the month, and then everyone could vote on those? Maybe a seperate thread with the final photos and a poll to vote? I don't know, just throwing ideas out there.


----------



## Culhwch

At this rate we're going to need a bigger forum!


----------



## Erin99

Oh, I don't know, Cul, the idea of being a stroppy, whiny brat has its appeal... 

How about only allowing two pics per person? Otherwise you may end up with six people posting one each and one person adding ten - very unfair odds! Whereas only allowing two shots means each participant must select their very best work for exhibit.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Well, it was just an idea!  We can just do the voting in the original thread then, at the end of the month.

edit: That would work too Leish. I just thought if someone took a bunch of different pictures and wanted to post them, that was fine, but they would be forced to pick only one for consideration in the voting.


----------



## Wybren

One of the sites I go to, they have a monthly competition, but they have a theme and a limit of one picture per person.
 We could have two threads, one for the photos and then one at the end of the month for the voting.


----------



## Erin99

> That would work too Leish. I just thought if someone took a bunch of different pictures and wanted to post them, that was fine, but they would be forced to pick only one for consideration in the voting.




Well, any spare pictures that don't "make the grade" can be posted in my photo thread. How about that? hat way people still get to see them, although they're not entered for the competition.

Edit: Or Wy's suggestion.


----------



## Wybren

how about we have the voting thread, the picture comp thread and post stuff in Leisha thread


----------



## Culhwch

Leisha said:


> Well, any spare pictures that don't "make the grade" can be posted in my photo thread. How about that? hat way people still get to see them, although they're not entered for the competition.
> 
> Edit: Or Wy's suggestion.


 
I think that that is pretty much what the Photo of the Day thread is for, really. I like the idea of picking one or two for the monthly challenge - still doesn't need to be called a contest! - and then having a vote at the end.


----------



## Culhwch

Also, I just floated the idea of a Photography sub-forum with the moderating group, so we'll see what comes of that...


----------



## Erin99

A photography sub-forum?! WOWOWOWOW! That would be _awsome_!

Thanks for suggesting it to them, Cul. *crosses everything crossable*


----------



## Wybren

Oh that would be brilliant!!!

I am off now Loopy, Swimming lessons call. As our friend says

Yoi yume-o


----------



## Erin99

Oh, I have had no mails from Our Friend! 


Well, bye, Wy! Have fun at swimming!


Yoi yume-o yourself, Lurker!


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Ooooooohhhh!! A subforum would be great!  Well, let's just go with Leish's idea of posting any pictures we take in the Photo of the Day thread (like Culhwch said, thats what its there for) and then submit our final 2 pictures to the Photo Challenge thread. That seems to be what everyone is leaning toward.

How does that sound? Good with 2 pictures being submitted?


----------



## Erin99

YES! Two pics would be great, since sometimes I can't make up my mind, fussy bee that I am. 


Can't wait! Wohooo! This should get me out and about taking more shots, hopefully.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I'm the same way, don't think I could narrow it down to one. But who knows, maybe I'll be overly critical and not come up with anything. 

Well, if everyone's good with that idea, I'll start the first photo challenge in the next day or so.


----------



## Culhwch

Good news! I've ordered my camera! Huzzah! After days of banging my head against the computer trying to get my credit card payment through (including a trip to my bank as well as a subsequent phonecall and lengthy time on hold) to no avail, my wife pops over my shoulder and says, 'Look, you can just transfer the cash straight from your account.' So it'll take a few days to clear, but with luck I'll have it this time next week. 

Bad news! Now I'm broke...

Good news! I just got bumped up to full-time, so more money!

Bad news! Less time for photography...

But, good news! I'm getting a new camera!


----------



## Erin99

Blergh! Yes, that's a bad conundrum indeed! Well, at least you'll be able to afford more extras in the future, and more lenses.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Alrighty, I finally got the first challenge up! Yea! I hope you guys like the theme, I was trying for something simple the first time around.

And *CONGRATULATIONS* to Leish and Culwch who got their new cameras!  Very exciting!!!


----------



## Erin99

Thanks.  I AM SUPER HAPPY! I can't wait to get shootin'! Roll on sunny days!

And I wish everyone good luck for the challenge! It'll be great seeing everyone's take on it. I wonder if some of us will turn up with the same type of images?


----------



## ktabic

Experience in a different forum which used to do monthly one word challenges (changed for monthly days out instead) is no, most people will have stunning different pictures, unless a word has such blatant meaning that not taking the implied picture becomes weird.


----------



## Erin99

The thing is, my sister and I are taking part, and we're very similar sometimes...

I hope we'll choose different subjects.


----------



## Culhwch

Lady of Winterfell said:


> And *CONGRATULATIONS* to Leish and Culwch who got their new cameras!  Very exciting!!!


 
Not just yet - last I checked the order was still being processed, but hopefully I'll have it by this weekend. If not, then early next week.

It's a good thing I'm a patient man...


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Well, some things are worth waiting for.  It's just the anticipation thats a killer!


----------



## Culhwch

So, got my camera yesterday afternoon! Very chuffed and yet overwhelmed all at the same time. There's a whole mess of buttons that my film SLR didn't have, let me tell you. And I could use the manual as a doorstop. It's going to take some getting used to. But I played around a little and took some test shots, some of which weren't even that bad. I didn't have time to upload them yet, but they're coming, I promise. Got a three-day weekend this weekend, so I know what I'll be doing...


----------



## Overread

Cul - one thing I can say (especially as you are in sunny sunny land!) is find the section on exposure compensation - for deaing with the manual modes (not full manual, but aperture and shutter priority modes). And set it to -1 - if using full manual underexposed my 1 stop (there should be a little bar to judge exposure) it helps during the bright parts of the day with preserving the whites and stopping them from overexposing


----------



## Culhwch

Thanks for the tip, OR. It'll be odd taking pictures and seeing them straightaway, so that I can change settings and try again. It doesn't have live-view, but it does have a preview function that takes a (low-memory) snap and shows things like an exposure histogram and what not. I just have to work out what it all means!


----------



## Overread

with the histogram (I know very little about it) try to keep the bars in the middle - if they are all bunched up at one end it means that :
1) if its all to the right there are underexposed sections of the photo
2) if its all to the left there are overexposed sections of the photo

in my camear it flashes a little graphic showing where the affected spots are - so you can work out if you need to change the exposure. Its a good gadget to learn to use and is more accurate than the LCD preview to assess a shot for exposure.


----------



## Grimward

Sorry to interrupt (Cheers, Cul, and congrats on the new camera!).  Check my response on US-published books, wolfie...would be happy to assist!

Now returning you to your regularly scheduled Dark Room discussion!


----------



## Redtail

Yay, finally bit the bullet and bought a camera.
Got a Fuji finepix S5800, havn't as yet taken any phots, but am going to Eagles Heritage on Friday, so will try it out for real then.  Can't wait


----------



## Grimward

Love eagles, Redtail.  Leave a couple photos here afterwards, if you would, and congrats on your new camera, too!


----------



## Culhwch

Advice!

I didn't think this belonged in the tips and tricks thread, so I thought I'd ressurect TDR... I'm looking for a monopod - good quality, but with luck relatively inexpensive. I've checked out what Ebay has to offer, but I don't know that I trust the no-brand cheapies, and other than that there is slim pickings. I've been looking at low-end Manfrottos and Velbons, but I seem to come across mixed reviews. So can anyone recommend anything?


----------



## Overread

Manfrottos is a good and solid company to go for in any of their products. I don't have a monopod and can't offer much advice as to which to go for specifically, but I can advise that you avoid the monopods with a small foldout tripod attached. The length of the single column is so long on these that you gain no stability from the (often) thin legs - and they are certainly not stable enough to hold a camera (even a point and shoot) in anything but the lightest of winds for the shortest of seconds. Best to stick to the good old single pole!

Also, if you have a tripod or monopod which comes with a quick release plate (a very handy item for going from support to handheld quickly and without fuss) consider attaching a line of string to the bottom of the plate (they often have a ring screw turner on the base) and attaching a weight to the base of the string - you can then step on the string with a foot, pull it tight and you have a good pressure support for your camera


----------



## Culhwch

I'm definitely keen on a quick release, but the models that are in my price range are not generally heavy on features... I'm getting frustrated because I'm seeing all these cheap ones through American sites, but thy either don't ship out of the country or the freight makes it pointless.

I'm thinking I'll visit some camera stores and check some of the models out in the flesh (or in the aluminium, as it were) so I can get a feel for what I want. It's hard gauging from a scant description and the assistance of a tape measure.

And I actually just watched the video about the string and weight dealy Highlander posted - something to consider.


----------



## Culhwch

Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums - The Shutterbugs

Thought I'd kick it off again, though for the life of my I couldn't remember what it was called before!


----------



## HoopyFrood

Just when I thought I couldn't love anything more than I love my camera, I bought a new camera bag today. It's awesome; a big, hench Lowepro one which looks as if I could throw it down a mountain and my camera wouldn't even get a scratch on it. And I just found a waterproof cover in one of the pockets. Now I just need a rainy, windy day in order to properly test it out...


----------



## Erin99

Ah, Lowpro backs rock! I used to have one of those. Now I use a plain holdall bag with foam padding added in the bottom, because most camera bags _look_ like camera bags, and therefore are a good target for thieves. But I _do_ like gadget bags with tardis-like pockets and hidey holes.

Here's my bag:







I like it!


----------



## Culhwch

I bought a LowePro bag, which I like but in truth is a little small - it said it would hold a DSLR with a medium-length zoom and one or two other lenses, which, when I got it home, I discovered was a bit of a half-truth. Of course, my Pentax _is_ a beast of a camera. I picked up the latest Olympus in a store a couple weeks back and could barely believe how small it was. But still it's a little frustrating leaving some of my kit at home for want of a larger bag.

And then I also won another LowePro bag, a Terraclime 100, which is stylish and eco-friendly, but almost useless when it comes to carrying a camera...

I'd like to get something a bit bigger at some point, and I have my eye on their sling-style bags, or maybe a backpack.


----------



## Overread

Ahh lowePro!
I have a mini nature trekker bag which (just) holds all my camera kit - and can hold the tripod on the back. Though I have no room to add any more lenses to it 
ITs also got one of those nifty waterproof covers (or as I like to call them the "Go on the underground and its not going to have empty pockets by the end cover")


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

I'm hoping to get a new camera bag soon as well. Although I'm looking to get a camera backpack. This one in particular:








Hoping to order it from Amazon soon!


----------



## HoopyFrood

> ...and therefore are a good target for thieves



Mine has something which I call the thief confuser (well, that's what I reckon it is). It has a catch and a flap on the front which anyone (including myself, as I did it the first time I tried to open it) would assume opens the main compartment. But there's just a small pocket underneath. To get to the camera, there's a zip on the back of the bag, which presses against me when I'm wearing it.

Course, doesn't help if someone just decides to nab it off me... But I always hold onto the bag strap when it's over my shoulder and onto the camera strap when the camera's around my neck.

And mine's only a little camera, so it fits snugly into the bag, with room to spare.


----------



## sloweye

I have a strap on the camera which i put around my neck, a lens case that ataches to my belt, and a big build and black belts in Karete and Taekwondo for my anti mugger device.
But i keep most of my equipment in the metal cases at home


----------



## Highlander II

sloweye said:


> I have a strap on the camera which i put around my neck, a lens case that ataches to my belt, and a big build and black belts in Karete and Taekwondo for my anti mugger device.
> But i keep most of my equipment in the metal cases at home



So you're an _offensive_ photographer, then? (rather than defensive) XD  Or, a photographer with a built-in anti-theft device. =)


----------



## ktabic

I have a LowePro Slingshot 200. Holds a DLSR and lens, plus 2-3 more lens and assorted bits. Is also pretty quick to get into.


----------



## Lady of Winterfell

Just got my new bag yesterday. Quite excited!


----------



## Culhwch

Holy thread resurrection, Batman!

So I love my Pentax. I do. Really. But lately I have to admit to a twinge of jealously as I've been looking for a few new lenses and finding them priced well beyond my means while I see Nikons and Canons that are, in comparison, criminally cheap. It's really quite galling. Pentax and Pentax-mount lenses are few and far between over here, unfortunately, and as such the prices are accordingly high. 

So I was wondering if anyone here on our lovely forums had any suggestions as to where I may look internationally for good deals on new or quality used lenses. Any and all pointers welcome.


----------



## The Ace

Ebay's the obvious place to start, Cul.

However, if you're looking for sheer power, try a preset long tom (manufacturer changes but they're available in 300mm/f5.6, 400mm/f6.3 or 500mm/f8) or a 500mm/f8 mirror lens.

They all take t-mounts so it's no problem finding the fitting you want.  The disadvantage is that you lose autofocus (hardly a problem with their narrow depth-of-field) and are limited to aperture priority or manual metering.

It should also be noted that any K-mount lens will fit your camera, but you need Ka for all your operating modes and Kaf for autofocus and the older lenses with mechanical stop-down levers have to be operated stopped down for metering, hope this helps.


----------



## Culhwch

Yeah, tried eBay, locally and internationally. The prices are slightly cheaper new, but generally not enough to cover postage/bother/risk box will be filled with sand. And used, well, generally the bidding outpaces me, when there is anythign worth bidding on.

I'm actually after a few specific lenses. I really want a good AF 50mm prime, f1.8 or even better f1.4. I have an old Tokina 50mm f2 but it's all manual, which is why I want to upgrade. I wouldn't mind a 50mm or 100mm macro, either, and I'd also like to get a x-200mm (I'd like 18- but would probably have to settle for 70-) zoom to replace my 70-300mm kit lens, which is really too big to bother taking anywhere.


----------



## HoopyFrood

I am in love!

Here I am, watching some Friends, and an advert comes on about the new Lumix g1. Not quite a DSLR (the mirrorbox has been removed, which explains its smalelr size), but with changeable lenses. It's small and handy, and has a twistable view screen, and shake, motion, face, screen detection, and also...get this, subject detection, so even if the subject moves, it keeps it in focus. And get _this_! *Eye sensor: Live View Finder switches on when you look into it. **When you look into the viewfinder, a sensor automatically turns the Live View Finder on and the LCD off. *

Argh! I want it, I want it, I want it!

Screw my Masters, I'll spend my money on this baby instead! Who needs education!


----------



## The Ace

Yes, without a mirror-box it can't be an SLR.


----------



## Overread

No Hoopy NOOOO!!!!
It's a freak - a hybrid - it will have deformed offspring and all the rest!

(ps eye detection is on my camera too - it turns the LCD off when your close to use the viewfinder - which is always on ) 

As for SLRs and digital I think the future SLRs will be called SLRs (as a marketing name) but will probably end up losing htemirror box as live view becomes more expansive (current models have backscreen live view with up to 10*magnification and many other nift features


----------



## HoopyFrood

Pff, you and your fancy camera.

And I don't care, you can't plan love, and I am in love, baby!


----------



## Overread

*huffs* that Lumix is more expensive than mine is now 
Besides one like you should be falling in love with the Olympus 4/3rd mount  cameras (smaller sensor which means even more macro goodness!)


----------



## HoopyFrood

...

but, but...

have you seen it? twisty screen, and and, small and handy, and and, different colours, and and and...!


----------



## Overread

pfft twisty screen my paw!
though yah it does come in rather a nice reddy shade


----------



## HoopyFrood

Mind you, I say all this, but in truth, a new photo camera is a looooong way behind getting a digital video camera.

WANT!


----------



## Overread

Canon 500D hoopy - its got video in a DSLR! 
*though personally I would prefer the 7D but it costs a lot more)


----------



## HoopyFrood

My current camera has video capabilities, as well.

But I have to say I want a proper video recorder camera; I like making films too darned much now.


----------



## Overread

so something really shiny like this? https://www.samstores.com/_images/products/Canon XL2.jpg


----------



## HoopyFrood

*Drools* By the gods, yes.


----------



## Ursa major

Do you get to use video equipment with your studies, Hoopy, or are they mostly concerned with the textual aspects of the visual arts?



_* I have little interest in making videos, OR, but even _I _can see that that camera is a cool bit of kit. *_


----------



## Overread

Canon XL1 Canon - previous model video camera by canon and it floats around on ebay ar around £1100ish+ (current model is way up into the £1000s). I was looking at one for wildlife work but I think I'm going to stick with collecting the camera gear. There is even an adaptor to fit DSLR (canon) lenses to that camera as well, though I've no idea how well they work (and the kit lens on that has an impressive zoom already from what I have seen)


----------



## HoopyFrood

I'm doing strictly Creative Writing (well, I saw strictly, I managed to sneak in a module of something else, but anyway...) focusing very much on the writing aspect. Filming's just what I do in my spare time 

I say again, doing away with my Masters is looking very tempting...


----------



## mygoditsraining

My girlfriend just gave me a Sony Alpha A550 body; I suspect my brother has ponied up for a lens - this makes a nice digital upgrade from my old Canon 300 (film) and and even bigger upgrade from the Fujifilm S5500 that I was using for my (incredibly grainy) digital shots.

Will need to pry the identity of the lens from my brother, so I can decide what to use the gift money from my parents on...


----------



## mygoditsraining

Update; found a cheap and cheerful Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.5 lens to stick on it for general use.  First job: photographing my girlfriend's yarn stash for her to post on Ravelry.  /sigh.


----------



## AE35Unit

mygoditsraining said:


> Update; found a cheap and cheerful Tamron 28-300/3.5-6.5 lens to stick on it for general use. First job: photographing my girlfriend's yarn stash for her to post on Ravelry. /sigh.


 
cool, nice lens! Do yu know what the sensor size is on the A550? I dont think its full frame is it?
Cos that lens will act like a longer lens otherwise-getting wideangles on consumer DSLRs is a night mare, especially older ones like my Canon 10D!
28-300 on my camera would be like 50-480mm!


----------



## HoopyFrood

So, Flickr's gone and changed on me and now linking photos to here is refusing to work. I've gone to its new "Share This" section, clicked and copied the URL, all the usual stuff...but when I link it here, it claims to be a broken link and the photo won't appear. Anyone have the same problem? If so, anyway around it? If not, then whhhhyyyy meeeeee...


----------



## The Ace

Dusts down the equipment shelves, sighing as he reaches his real camera


----------



## Culhwch

HoopyFrood said:


> So, Flickr's gone and changed on me and now linking photos to here is refusing to work. I've gone to its new "Share This" section, clicked and copied the URL, all the usual stuff...but when I link it here, it claims to be a broken link and the photo won't appear. Anyone have the same problem? If so, anyway around it? If not, then whhhhyyyy meeeeee...


 
Let's see...






Hmmm, nope.





Ah, yes, there we go.

There is probably an easier way, but this works: Go to your photo, drop down the *Actions* menu and select *View all sizes*. Select the size you want, then right-click on the image, select *Properties*, then cut and paste the *Address (URL) *into the insert image box here. Voila. 

I haven't done this for awhile, but I'm sure at home using Opera (on IE here at work) I can just right-click and copy the image location, and that works as well. Will test it tonight.


----------



## HoopyFrood

OK, testing, testing...






ARGH! Cul, you're a freaking genius. And I don't say that often, so feel proud and genius-like!


----------



## Culhwch

Well okay, if you insist...


----------



## AE35Unit

The Ace said:


> Dusts down the equipment shelves, sighing as he reaches his real camera


Now thats nice!


----------



## Overread

Culhwch said:


> There is probably an easier way, but this works: Go to your photo, drop down the *Actions* menu and select *View all sizes*. Select the size you want, then right-click on the image, select *Properties*, then cut and paste the *Address (URL) *into the insert image box here. Voila.
> 
> I haven't done this for awhile, but I'm sure at home using Opera (on IE here at work) I can just right-click and copy the image location, and that works as well. Will test it tonight.



Currently there is no easier way to do it - this is the only current way on flickr. The reason is that flickr wants to keep people using the HTML that auto links back to their site - keep attracting new and paying members and the like. So the URL cheat above is the only way we have at present

And by the way really love that shot Cul!

And Ace flashing a Pentax around the place - for shame for shame! 
(actually the bigger shame is pentax managing not to release a DSLR for the western market)


----------



## Culhwch

Overread said:


> And by the way really love that shot Cul!



Why, thank you!



> And Ace flashing a Pentax around the place - for shame for shame!
> (actually the bigger shame is pentax managing not to release a DSLR for the western market)



I don't understand. There are plenty of Pentax DSLRs out there. Mine included...


----------



## Overread

I thought the newest Pentax only got a Japan regional release?


----------



## Culhwch

Well, I know here in Australia we've been able to purchase the K100, the K200, the K10, the K20, and the more recent K7, K-m and K-x fairly widely as they've been released. I don't really keep up with the cutting edge of camera news, but I was under the impression the new K5 and K-r would be being released here sometime before the end of the year. I seem to recall that the custom-coloured K-M or K-x (can't remember which) was only available in Japan - maybe that's what you are thinking of?


----------



## The Ace

I really wish they wouldn't do that.

My prime 35mm is a KX, which solved the problems of the KM.

Now we have the K10, K100, K-m and K-x digitals.


----------



## Culhwch

Well actually the K10 and K100 are the oldest of the list, upgraded to the K20 and K200 respectively (I've got the K200).

They are always going to release new cameras as the technologies improve and old tech is superceded. No use getting red in the face about it!


----------



## Vertigo

Well if we're all going to start pulling out our old cameras (Cul and AE last month and now the Ace) I guess I'll have to pull one of my old ones out:












Actually to be fair it was really my father's before I was born! Still works as well, though to honest the optics are not brilliant . Maybe I'll post the whole collection one of these days! Shame I didn't keep the first couple of "serious" cameras that I owned. A Zorki 4 followed a few years later by a Zenith E.

By the way Cul - I love the flower photo; perfect composition, colour, depth of field everything - really nice.


----------



## The Ace

It's not the release of new models I'm worried about, but the recycling of names.  These days, if you google, 'Pentax KX,' it shows you the digital, not the solid manual.

The original KX may only have been in production for three years, but it was a remarkably nice piece of kit.


----------



## AE35Unit

The Ace said:


> It's not the release of new models I'm worried about, but the recycling of names.  These days, if you google, 'Pentax KX,' it shows you the digital, not the solid manual.
> 
> The original KX may only have been in production for three years, but it was a remarkably nice piece of kit.



Has to be better than the dreadful name that was *ist! And have you seen the new range of DSLRs? They're all in gaudy colours like bright pink, blue, green etc! Seems poor Pentax is in financial trouble and they need desperate measures to boost sales!


----------



## AE35Unit

Vertigo said:


> Well if we're all going to start pulling out our old cameras (Cul and AE last month and now the Ace) I guess I'll have to pull one of my old ones out:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually to be fair it was really my father's before I was born! Still works as well, though to honest the optics are not brilliant ..



Gorgeous piece of equipment there-can you still get filn for it?


----------



## Vertigo

Yeah, just takes standard 120 roll film. Although I guess that's going to gradually get harder to come by, I think it will still be around for some time to come. The 120 format has been around for a long time, I think you'll find that Brownie box camera of Cul's takes exactly the same.


----------



## The Ace

120's getting prohibitive, though, my Kiev 88's been on its shelf for over a year.


----------



## Vertigo

Yes, unfortunately I expect film use to die off pretty quickly now. And to be honest I can't justify the time and cost of keeping my own darkroom going any longer. I was already mixing most of my own chemicals and I suspect that will soon be the only way you'll get them. As for photographic paper, I think that will be around for a while longer yet. Photographic printing is still cheaper and produces better quality than any of the "dry" technologies (like ink jet) but it is only a matter of time, and the printers themselves are a lot cheaper. Our main printer cost £55,000 and an equivalent "dry" printer is only about £20,000. We are hoping the quality and media cost will be comparable by the time we need to replace it as we really don't want to buy another chemical printer just before they go obsolete.


----------



## Overread

I suspect that film won't go out of fashion - infact in the working market there is even a fashion for black and white film photography (esp in weddings). I suspect the market will go up and down and mess around until one or two key companies appear ahead of the others to do processing - most likely in the form of mailorder - you send off your negatives and get your prints back in the post; whilst also offering mailorder chemicals for the darkroom


----------



## Vertigo

I'm afraid long term I don't share your confidence OR. Most pro photographers have shifted to digital now (including the fashion market) and frankly you have better control and manipulation available doing monchrome digitally than was ever possible chemically. You have no idea how much it pains me to say that. I used to believe digital processes would never achieve the sublety of tone that you could produce chemically but now I have come around to the digital way and it will only continue to improve.


----------



## Culhwch

The Ace said:


> It's not the release of new models I'm worried about, but the recycling of names. These days, if you google, 'Pentax KX,' it shows you the digital, not the solid manual.
> 
> The original KX may only have been in production for three years, but it was a remarkably nice piece of kit.


 
Ah, I see my confusion, I misunderstood. Yeah, that is slightly bizarre, recycling names like that. Can't be hard to come up with new names. The Pentax KCA1000x, for instance. (Where the 'C' stands for Canon's and the 'K' for Kicks. The 'A' you can work out yourselves...)



Vertigo said:


> By the way Cul - I love the flower photo; perfect composition, colour, depth of field everything - really nice.


 
Thank you, glad you like it!



AE35Unit said:


> Has to be better than the dreadful name that was *ist! And have you seen the new range of DSLRs? They're all in gaudy colours like bright pink, blue, green etc! Seems poor Pentax is in financial trouble and they need desperate measures to boost sales!


 
I don't think it's an effort to boost sales. Who says DSLRs must be black? I loved my silver Pentax SLR, I think the white ones look awesome, and I wouldn't mind getting a dark green one when I upgrade in the future...


----------



## chrispenycate

Cameras were matt black so that any leakage of light, even at the 'one photon at a time' variety, would be absorbed rather than slowly fogging the film. With CCD receptors, this becomes a little irrelevant, so why not make them colour coordinated accessories, make them match handbag and nail varnish? You could do clip on plastic shells for different occasions, or a rhinestone encrusted flash diffuser…

_Looks around to notice his audience advancing on him with clubs._


----------



## AE35Unit

No no no, cameras should be matt black and weigh a ton with loads of knobs and switches-they shouldnt look like toys but should be tools, a means to an end.
As for film well its a shame but its like vinyl, on the way out but the die hards refise to accept the suoeriority of digital.


----------



## The Ace

Actually, AE, my Pentax system has 2 bodies, 5 lenses, flash, extension tubes, filters etc, etc.

Digital is more convenient but having to buy new kit from scratch means that I'm sacrificing flexibility for convenience.  The trigger voltage of my flashguns is too high for my EOS 450D and have you seen the price of a teleconverter or a set of extension tubes ?

The only real advantage is that you can change film speeds or switch to b/w at the touch of a button, rendering a second body unnnecessary.


----------



## AE35Unit

The Ace said:


> Actually, AE, my Pentax system has 2 bodies, 5 lenses, flash, extension tubes, filters etc, etc.
> 
> Digital is more convenient but having to buy new kit from scratch means that I'm sacrificing flexibility for convenience.  The trigger voltage of my flashguns is too high for my EOS 450D and have you seen the price of a teleconverter or a set of extension tubes ?
> 
> The only real advantage is that you can change film speeds or switch to b/w at the touch of a button, rendering a second body unnnecessary.


If I were starting aghain I'd have a Pentax DSLR for all those old lenses that will work on it-not so with my Canon or Fred's Nikon!


----------



## The Ace

Beggars can't be choosers, I, 'Inherited,' the Canon.


----------



## Vertigo

I know what you mean Ace, I look at all my old kit and my heart bleeds at the price of it. Hassleblad with 2 backs and 2 lens (they cost as much as the body), 2 Canons with assorted lenses, etc. Then there's all the darkroom kit enlarger with three different lens etc.  I do use the old Canon lenses with the Canon D20 that I inherited from my business but the focal lengths are all messed up of course and I don't have anything as wide as I'd like any longer. The one really wide old lens I've got fits on the Canon D20 body but it's electronics don't like it .


----------



## Overread

Vertigo said:


> I'm afraid long term I don't share your confidence OR. Most pro photographers have shifted to digital now (including the fashion market) and frankly you have better control and manipulation available doing monchrome digitally than was ever possible chemically. You have no idea how much it pains me to say that. I used to believe digital processes would never achieve the sublety of tone that you could produce chemically but now I have come around to the digital way and it will only continue to improve.



Oh I certainly agree that digital has taken over the pro and amateur market in a big way - dynamic range is still a weakness of digital sensors, though they are getting better and at my last check the price of large format digital backs was still very prohibitive even to working pros. 

I think that what will happen is film will slip down into being supported by hobbyists and also a few select pros who aim to corner the vintage sector of the market. 

I don't think we will lost film photography in its entirety for a long while yet


----------



## AE35Unit

The Ace said:


> Beggars can't be choosers, I, 'Inherited,' the Canon.


So did I, kind of


----------



## AE35Unit

Overread said:


> Oh I certainly agree that digital has taken over the pro and amateur market in a big way - dynamic range is still a weakness of digital sensors,


Which was the original reason for HDR raising its head, but now its just seen as a creative outlet in its own right with mostly awful results! I've rarely come across a HDR shot done for the right reason and done correctly!


----------



## Vertigo

I was scratching my head a little about your dynamic range references there and the statement that digital sensors are poorer than film. This is not my understanding of it. Dynamic range is generally measured in EVs or Stops (same thing - increase of one EV/Stop is a doubling of light). Photographic paper was generally considered to be capable of representing around 7 stops, film around 9 possibly 11 with push and pull techniques but certainly no more than that. Now From wiki (here High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I get these tables:

*Dynamic Ranges of Common DevicesDeviceStopsContrastComputer LCD9.5700:1DSLR camera (Canon EOS-1D Mark II)11[4]2048:1Print film7[4]128:1*


> *Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices*DeviceStopsContrastComputer LCD9.5700:1DSLR camera (Canon EOS-1D Mark II)11[4]2048:1Print film7[4]128:1
> 
> 
> 
> *Dynamic range for each ISO setting of the Canon EOS-1D Mark II[7]ISODynamic Range (Stops)5011.310011.620011.540011.280010.716009.732008.7*


 
All of which suggests to me that digital cameras have now surpassed film and print for dynamic range.

Oh and by the way I do agree that film and darkroom techniques will continue to stick around in specialist and hobbyist roles for some time to come. Though it will become progressively hader to get the materials. It is all very well making your own chemicals up (I have done it and it's really not hard just requires care; some of those chemicals are seriously nasty poisons), but making your own film and paper is a lot harder. Maybe that market will end up going back to glass plates which would be easier to make up than film!*
*


----------



## AE35Unit

Vertigo said:


> Now From wiki (here High dynamic range imaging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) I get these tables:
> 
> *Dynamic Ranges of Common DevicesDeviceStopsContrastComputer LCD9.5700:1DSLR camera (Canon EOS-1D Mark II)11[4]2048:1Print film7[4]128:1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *


I'm not even gonna attempt to decipher that


----------



## Vertigo

Ooops sorry they looked fine when I first posted them . I'll try and transcribe them and post again!


----------



## Vertigo

OK here they are best I can reproduce them here:

Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices 
Device ..............Stops ........Contrast 
Computer LCD ....9.5 ............700:1 
DSLR camera ......11 .............2048:1 (Canon EOS-1D Mark II)
Print film ..............7 ..............128:1 


Dynamic range for each ISO setting of the Canon EOS-1D Mark II[7]

ISO ....Dynamic Range (Stops) 
50 .........11.3 
100 .......11.6 
200 .......11.5 
400 .......11.2 
800 .......10.7 
1600 .......9.7 
3200 .......8.7 

All of which suggests to me that digital cameras have now surpassed film and print for dynamic range.


----------



## AE35Unit

Vertigo said:


> OK here they are best I can reproduce them here:
> 
> Dynamic Ranges of Common Devices
> Device ..............Stops ........Contrast
> Computer LCD ....9.5 ............700:1
> DSLR camera ......11 .............2048:1 (Canon EOS-1D Mark II)
> Print film ..............7 ..............128:1
> 
> 
> Dynamic range for each ISO setting of the Canon EOS-1D Mark II[7]
> 
> ISO ....Dynamic Range (Stops)
> 50 .........11.3
> 100 .......11.6
> 200 .......11.5
> 400 .......11.2
> 800 .......10.7
> 1600 .......9.7
> 3200 .......8.7
> 
> All of which suggests to me that digital cameras have now surpassed film and print for dynamic range.


Well I've been told that my 6 MP Canon 10D can out-perform film for detail-but not sure about its DR. There are times when using HDR could improve things-if I could be bothered! But any camera is going to be dynamically challenged, being able to render shadow or highlight detail, but not both equally, hence the origin (and now misuse) of HDR.


----------

