how can i make someone’s skin more tan?

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red. —
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

"Michael Canavle" wrote in message

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Post the picture somewhere so that we can see it.

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

check:
http://www.photoshoptechniques.com/forum/archive/index.php/t -1024.html or Google for more clues.

In article <2xc9e.9013$>,
"Michael Canavle" wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Selct the skin areas, with whatever technique works best (Select->Color Range and the Pen tool might be good places to start), then color correct using Image->Adjust->Curves.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

In article <2xc9e.9013$>,
"Michael Canavle" wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

I’d use a mask on the exposed areas of your friend’s skin using a brush with a slightly soft edge. Then, try adjusting the color curves slightly, and add red/magenta (depending upon your color mode) to the mask until it looks how she wants.

Could you possibly post a link to the picture so we can see what you’re dealing with?

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Yes, cyan determines the degree of tan. And yes, Selective Colors is a good way to add/subtract cyan, but it does not work all the time. In some cases, subtracting all the cyan in red will not lower the cyan value (enough). Why and what can be done?

wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Yes, cyan determines the degree of tan. And yes, Selective Colors is a good way to add/subtract cyan, but it does not work all the time. In some cases, subtracting all the cyan in red will not lower the cyan value (enough). Why and what can be done?

As far as removing cyan, but there are a couple of possibilites.

If you are in CMYK mode, then make sure your separation setup uses light GCR, to avoid any black in the flesh tones, since this in effect "locks" in a certain amount of cyan.

In RGB mode, there can be a similar problem if the flesh tone is too dark. In that case, adding red to red will have an effect similar to removing cyan – add a bit of yellow as well. But a better way to lighten the flesh tone is to convert to Lab, and use the Lightness curve to get the general brightness where you want, then remove cyan from red to get a pinker skin color.

BTW – magenta is another important component of skin color. Removing it from red will reduce a sun burned look.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Yes, cyan determines the degree of tan. And yes, Selective Colors is a good way to add/subtract cyan, but it does not work all the time. In some cases, subtracting all the cyan in red will not lower the cyan value (enough). Why and what can be done?

As far as removing cyan, but there are a couple of possibilites.
If you are in CMYK mode, then make sure your separation setup uses light GCR, to avoid any black in the flesh tones, since this in effect "locks" in a certain amount of cyan.

I understand that black in cmyk contributes to skin tan/darkness much like cyan. But what is "light GCR", and where and how is it set up?

In RGB mode, there can be a similar problem if the flesh tone is too dark. In that case, adding red to red will have an effect similar to removing cyan – add a bit of yellow as well. But a better way to lighten the flesh tone is to convert to Lab, and use the Lightness curve to get the general brightness where you want, then remove cyan from red to get a pinker skin color.

Selective Colors is particularly useful for correcting skin tones in images where red/yellow skin tones are against a non red/yellow background. Then tweaking red/yellow with Selective Colors will only alter the skin tones without messing up the background and without having to make a selection.

Your suggestion to lighten L in LAB would affect the whole image. But that may be the only solution.

BTW – magenta is another important component of skin color. Removing it from red will reduce a sun burned look.

I have never been able to lower cyan in magenta with Selective Colors. The biggest cyan (or any other color) change is in neutral. But that again affects the whole image instead of an individual color.

Stick ’em out in the sun for a while..

wrote:
….

I have never been able to lower cyan in magenta with Selective Colors. The biggest cyan (or any other color) change is in neutral. But that again affects the whole image instead of an individual color.

This does not sound like Image>Adjust>Selective Color, but another command. Variations, levels and curves, for example, behave like this. Selective color lives up to its name, selectively changing colors within a color, and it works very well for adjusting magenta and cyan in skin tones. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

wrote:
…

I have never been able to lower cyan in magenta with Selective Colors. The biggest cyan (or any other color) change is in neutral. But that again affects the whole image instead of an individual color.

This does not sound like Image>Adjust>Selective Color, but another command. Variations, levels and curves, for example, behave like this. Selective color lives up to its name, selectively changing colors within a color, and it works very well for adjusting magenta and cyan in skin tones.

I was using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, but never from Image>Adjust>Selective Color. I would think the tool will act the same way.

When using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, I can reduce cyan in red (to a degree per earlier discussion), but can’t reduce cyan in magenta at all. This is from reading a color sampler on a face in the same image.

wrote:
[re use of selective color to change cyan and magenta in skin tones]

I was using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, but never from Image>Adjust>Selective Color. I would think the tool will act the same way.

It does.

When using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, I can reduce cyan in red (to a degree per earlier discussion), but can’t reduce cyan in magenta at all. This is from reading a color sampler on a face in the same image.

Most faces are orange: between the red and yellow primaries on the color wheel. Orange is not magenta, so removing or adding any color from magenta will have no effect on a face. Likewise, since the face is not pure red, you cannot remove 100 percent of the cyan, but instead the weighted average of the amount of cyan you specify for red and yellow.

To check this out use Select>Color Range, and see which colors create a selection in the preview window. Images of people typically have nothing except clothing in the cyan or magenta primaries, and plenty in red. Skin tones are never 100 percent red, but orange, and this is the reason you cannot typically remove all of the cyan. The amount of change is affected also by the Relative and Absolute option in Selective color.

Although this is fascinating to you and me, others can skip the complexity and just use it to cure jaundice or add sun tan by adding cyan to red, or remove sun burn by removing magenta from red.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Mike Russell wrote:

wrote:
[re use of selective color to change cyan and magenta in skin tones]

I was using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, but never from Image>Adjust>Selective Color. I would think the tool will act the same way.

It does.

When using Selective Colors in an adjustment layer, I can reduce cyan in red (to a degree per earlier discussion), but can’t reduce cyan in magenta at all. This is from reading a color sampler on a face in the same image.

Most faces are orange: between the red and yellow primaries on the color wheel. Orange is not magenta, so removing or adding any color from magenta will have no effect on a face. Likewise, since the face is not pure red, you cannot remove 100 percent of the cyan, but instead the weighted average of the amount of cyan you specify for red and yellow.

To check this out use Select>Color Range, and see which colors create a selection in the preview window. Images of people typically have nothing except clothing in the cyan or magenta primaries, and plenty in red. Skin tones are never 100 percent red, but orange, and this is the reason you cannot typically remove all of the cyan. The amount of change is affected also by the Relative and Absolute option in Selective color.
Although this is fascinating to you and me, others can skip the complexity and just use it to cure jaundice or add sun tan by adding cyan to red, or remove sun burn by removing magenta from red.

I agree and practice everything you said. Using Selective Colors is a great way to adjust skin tones. But my point is that sometimes when the skin tone is in deep shadow, it is impossible to sufficiently lighten it by reducing cyan in red and in yellow.

I should also point out that Selective Colors can do things that curves cannot.

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Hi Mike,

seeing that you are a very knowledgable man, just curious: Would you ever use one of the photographic filter simulators and use a warm-up filter in a case like this? Then fine tune it as necessary.

It would be interesting to try both methods on the same image and compare the results.

All the best,
Brian.

Brian wrote:
….

seeing that you are a very knowledgable man, just curious: Would you ever use one of the photographic filter simulators and use a warm-up filter in a case like this? Then fine tune it as necessary.

Personally, no. I have no problem with the technique in general because I’m a big believer in tools that leverage people’s knowledge of conventional photography. If a photographer is used to a Tiffen 812, why not give them a digital version of the same filter, and in fact every Tiffen filter in the book, if it helps orient their technique in the new world of digital.

It would be interesting to try both methods on the same image and compare the results.

This would be interesting, as would results with an actual filter over the lens. Perhaps someone has a link. The real world is made up of complex spectral colors – flowers for example – that don’t fit neatly into RGB designations, and there may be cases where a lens filter yields very different results from filtering after the fact.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:36:19 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Hi Mike,

seeing that you are a very knowledgable man, just curious: Would you ever use one of the photographic filter simulators and use a warm-up filter in a case like this? Then fine tune it as necessary.
It would be interesting to try both methods on the same image and compare the results.

All the best,
Brian.

Generally, it’s always easier to get the shot right in the first place. It makes using PS to edit a lot easier for one thing. However, AFAIC, I use the minimum amount of filtration on the lens. Basically, the only filters I have are ND, ND Grad, Polarizer and 1 sunset grad. This is simply because I don’t believe in spending large amounts of money on Canon L series lenses and then putting another piece of glass or gel in front of it. I don’t care how good they are, they’re not going to be as good as the optics. But, there are sometimes when you need to use ND/Grad and nothing can replace a polarizer. Once or twice a year I might even use the sunset grad.

All the other filters are easily created in PS and don’t require you to degrade your lenses. So…
I know you didn’t ask me, but I thought I’d reply anyway .. 🙂 —

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:36:19 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Mike Russell wrote:

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Use Image>Adjust>Selective color to add cyan to red.

Hi Mike,

seeing that you are a very knowledgable man, just curious: Would you ever use one of the photographic filter simulators and use a warm-up filter in a case like this? Then fine tune it as necessary.
It would be interesting to try both methods on the same image and compare the results.

All the best,
Brian.

Generally, it’s always easier to get the shot right in the first place. It makes using PS to edit a lot easier for one thing. However, AFAIC, I use the minimum amount of filtration on the lens. Basically, the only filters I have are ND, ND Grad, Polarizer and 1 sunset grad. This is simply because I don’t believe in spending large amounts of money on Canon L series lenses and then putting another piece of glass or gel in front of it. I don’t care how good they are, they’re not going to be as good as the optics. But, there are sometimes when you need to use ND/Grad and nothing can replace a polarizer. Once or twice a year I might even use the sunset grad.

All the other filters are easily created in PS and don’t require you to degrade your lenses. So…
I know you didn’t ask me, but I thought I’d reply anyway .. 🙂 —

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

I am pretty much with you on that one. I am certainly not a "special effects filter" man. I was only asking about these filter simulators in here because I have never used them. In the instance here where someone wanted to give an ‘existing’ image a sun tan, I wondered if the filter would save some time.
I might take a pic in tungsten light with my white balance manually set to daylight, then apply a simulated 80B filter and see how it turns out. I will let you know. Shame that my image will be on a toy digital camera. Still using film for real images and a silly little Kodak for quick snaps for emailing to family, etc. I am looking at various digital cameras at the moment. Thinking of what you are currently using, with you prefering the lighter body, etc., have you seen the Canon EOS 350D? That looks like it may be perfect for you 🙂

All the best, Brian.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:36:17 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I might take a pic in tungsten light with my white balance manually set to daylight, then apply a simulated 80B filter and see how it turns out. I will let you know. Shame that my image will be on a toy digital camera. Still using film for real images and a silly little Kodak for quick snaps for emailing to family, etc. I am looking at various digital cameras at the moment. Thinking of what you are currently using, with you prefering the lighter body, etc., have you seen the Canon EOS 350D? That looks like it may be perfect for you 🙂

All the best, Brian.

Just waiting for it to arrive in the mail 🙂

I looked at it closely and, apart from the fact that the 20D is larger and has a mag alloy body and a few minor tweaks, the 350D is just as good. And while it’s lighter, the build quality is far better than the 300D. The only negatives I found when trying one out was that if you don’t have small hands you’ll probably want to buy the BG-E3 grip, and the screen on the back is a little on the small side. Other than that I think it’s an absolute bargain as my mail order camera store sold it for £150 off list price. 🙂

Plus, the box contains a set of vouchers which means I can get another £100 off my recently acquired 300mm f4 L. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:36:17 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I might take a pic in tungsten light with my white balance manually set to daylight, then apply a simulated 80B filter and see how it turns out. I will let you know. Shame that my image will be on a toy digital camera. Still using film for real images and a silly little Kodak for quick snaps for emailing to family, etc. I am looking at various digital cameras at the moment. Thinking of what you are currently using, with you prefering the lighter body, etc., have you seen the Canon EOS 350D? That looks like it may be perfect for you 🙂

All the best, Brian.

Just waiting for it to arrive in the mail 🙂

I looked at it closely and, apart from the fact that the 20D is larger and has a mag alloy body and a few minor tweaks, the 350D is just as good. And while it’s lighter, the build quality is far better than the 300D. The only negatives I found when trying one out was that if you don’t have small hands you’ll probably want to buy the BG-E3 grip, and the screen on the back is a little on the small side. Other than that I think it’s an absolute bargain as my mail order camera store sold it for £150 off list price. 🙂

Plus, the box contains a set of vouchers which means I can get another £100 off my recently acquired 300mm f4 L. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Wow!!! Well done madam. You are certainly a good bargain hunter. Great choice too, it looks like a terrific camera from what I have read. Would love to see some of the images off it, once it arrives, if you ever get a chance to post any. Have fun,

Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:36:17 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I might take a pic in tungsten light with my white balance manually set to daylight, then apply a simulated 80B filter and see how it turns out. I will let you know. Shame that my image will be on a toy digital camera. Still using film for real images and a silly little Kodak for quick snaps for emailing to family, etc. I am looking at various digital cameras at the moment. Thinking of what you are currently using, with you prefering the lighter body, etc., have you seen the Canon EOS 350D? That looks like it may be perfect for you 🙂

All the best, Brian.

Just waiting for it to arrive in the mail 🙂

I looked at it closely and, apart from the fact that the 20D is larger and has a mag alloy body and a few minor tweaks, the 350D is just as good. And while it’s lighter, the build quality is far better than the 300D. The only negatives I found when trying one out was that if you don’t have small hands you’ll probably want to buy the BG-E3 grip, and the screen on the back is a little on the small side. Other than that I think it’s an absolute bargain as my mail order camera store sold it for £150 off list price. 🙂

Plus, the box contains a set of vouchers which means I can get another £100 off my recently acquired 300mm f4 L. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Wow!!! Well done madam. You are certainly a good bargain hunter. Great choice too, it looks like a terrific camera from what I have read. Would love to see some of the images off it, once it arrives, if you ever get a chance to post any. Have fun,

Brian.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:07:28 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:36:17 +1000, Brian
wrote:

I might take a pic in tungsten light with my white balance manually set to daylight, then apply a simulated 80B filter and see how it turns out. I will let you know. Shame that my image will be on a toy digital camera. Still using film for real images and a silly little Kodak for quick snaps for emailing to family, etc. I am looking at various digital cameras at the moment. Thinking of what you are currently using, with you prefering the lighter body, etc., have you seen the Canon EOS 350D? That looks like it may be perfect for you 🙂

All the best, Brian.

Just waiting for it to arrive in the mail 🙂

I looked at it closely and, apart from the fact that the 20D is larger and has a mag alloy body and a few minor tweaks, the 350D is just as good. And while it’s lighter, the build quality is far better than the 300D. The only negatives I found when trying one out was that if you don’t have small hands you’ll probably want to buy the BG-E3 grip, and the screen on the back is a little on the small side. Other than that I think it’s an absolute bargain as my mail order camera store sold it for £150 off list price. 🙂

Plus, the box contains a set of vouchers which means I can get another £100 off my recently acquired 300mm f4 L. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Interesting, I decided to throw out the extra money on the 20D for the following differences…

20D
5 fps for up to 23 frames
350D
3 fps for up to 14 frames

20D
9 AF focal points
350D
7 AF focal points

20D
offers up to 3200 ISO exposure sensitivity
350D
offers up to 1600 ISO exposure sensitivity

20D
30 – 1/8000 second shutter speeds
350D
30 – 1/4000 second shutter speeds

20D
flash sync speed 1/250
350D
flash sync speed 1/200
(means highest shutter speed that can be used with flash as a fill flash)

20D
Larger Body size for bigger hands

20D
Magnesium Alloy body for clumsy people like me 🙂

(actually the higher sync speed is the main reason, the shutter speed is a nice bonus, the others were not really important to me)

the rest of this is boring dribble you can feel free to skip (just me feeling sorry for myself)

for a $300 price difference on a camera not likely to drop below $400 anytime in the next 5 or so years, I’d rather spend the extra and not be put in a
situation where I "NEED" that extra 1/50 of a second on my shutter speed, or my camera got knocked out of my hands by someone bumping into me and the body
cracked or dented in a way that hampers its functionality.

I am just getting into professional photography and have my first job at a professional studio, but I have a degree in photography and have been doing it and
loving it for 10 years now. The studio I work at has several 35mm and 4×5 format cameras I can use for any job, but only has 1 digital and its a 5.7 megapixel
at the owner almost always needs. So I am opting for something that I hope will benefit me and my needs better (I understand everyone has different needs and
bases their decisions on them).

In 1997 I bought a Sony DSC-600 (I think that was the model) for $1850, and another $1000 worth of accessories. IT was the hottest, newest thing available and
I bought it the day it was released on the market. A 1.3 megapixel digital SLR, the first consumer market model. It had a Carl Zeiss (sp?) lens and all kinds
of "neat" functions (at least I thought so back then, now every digital camera can do everything that one could). And I loved it, but many were the times when
I had wished I had waited 2 months and gotten the 3.2 megapixel model that came out, as while I took some great photos the 6 years I used that camera, I only
printed 1 and there was good reason for it (as anyone who has ever seen a 1.3 megapixel image will know). So I spent close to $3000 on an expensive toy that
taught me much and improved my "eye" and skill, but ruined my chances at owning something more "useful" as I could not afford another digital camera after that
one. so anyway, I am very careful (even with the little things) these days when making an expensive purchase, to ensure I will not regret spending a little
more to get something more useful.

callme annie wrote:

All the best, Brian.

Just waiting for it to arrive in the mail 🙂

I looked at it closely and, apart from the fact that the 20D is larger and has a mag alloy body and a few minor tweaks, the 350D is just as good. And while it’s lighter, the build quality is far better than the 300D. The only negatives I found when trying one out was that if you don’t have small hands you’ll probably want to buy the BG-E3 grip, and the screen on the back is a little on the small side. Other than that I think it’s an absolute bargain as my mail order camera store sold it for £150 off list price. 🙂

Plus, the box contains a set of vouchers which means I can get another £100 off my recently acquired 300mm f4 L. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Interesting, I decided to throw out the extra money on the 20D for the following differences…
20D
5 fps for up to 23 frames
350D
3 fps for up to 14 frames

20D
9 AF focal points
350D
7 AF focal points

20D
offers up to 3200 ISO exposure sensitivity
350D
offers up to 1600 ISO exposure sensitivity

20D
30 – 1/8000 second shutter speeds
350D
30 – 1/4000 second shutter speeds

20D
flash sync speed 1/250
350D
flash sync speed 1/200
(means highest shutter speed that can be used with flash as a fill flash)
20D
Larger Body size for bigger hands

20D
Magnesium Alloy body for clumsy people like me 🙂

Hi Annie,

just out of curiosity, seeing that you have been taking photos for 10 years or so, how often have you:
– needed to shoot at shutter speeds in excess of 1/4000 sec – shoot at 5fps for over say 10 frames
– use film speeds in excess of 1600 ISO

I realise some people would do all of the above on a regular basis (eg. photojournalists, sports photographers, macrophotography, etc), but personally, in 17 years of photography I could honestly answer "never" to all of the above. The only time the higher shutter speed would have been nice was shooting in a bright scene (say the beach) and wanting a shallow depth of field. In those cases one extra stop would not have been enough anyway, and that is what ND filters are for.

I think Hecate will be thrilled with her purchase, the EOS 350D sounds like a great camera. The 20D, of course, is an even better camera, but not any better if its extra features are never used.

All the best,
Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

just out of curiosity, seeing that you have been taking photos for 10 years or so, how often have you:
– needed to shoot at shutter speeds in excess of 1/4000 sec
[….]

Fast shutter speeds can be a good thing. This one was 1/1600 sec. Faster would have been better!
http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:49:49 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Wow!!! Well done madam. You are certainly a good bargain hunter. Great choice too, it looks like a terrific camera from what I have read. Would love to see some of the images off it, once it arrives, if you ever get a chance to post any. Have fun,

I still owe you an image – I haven’t forgotten. When I get my web space set up I’ll put a few there. 🙂

I’ll be interested to see the 300mm with the 350D as the angle of view gives you what 480mm would be. And when you add a 1.4x Extender it makes it the same angle of view as a 672mm 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:07:02 GMT, callme annie
wrote:

Interesting, I decided to throw out the extra money on the 20D for the following differences…
20D
5 fps for up to 23 frames
350D
3 fps for up to 14 frames

Don’t need the extra 2fps…

20D
9 AF focal points
350D
7 AF focal points

I can focus with 1 AF focus point – any more is just a luxury I can live without…

20D
offers up to 3200 ISO exposure sensitivity
350D
offers up to 1600 ISO exposure sensitivity

And, I’m sorry to say, crap at both speeds. A faster lens is far more use…

20D
30 – 1/8000 second shutter speeds
350D
30 – 1/4000 second shutter speeds

I have never, in 20 years, needed a shutter speed, faster than 1/4000 and that is very rarely.

20D
flash sync speed 1/250
350D
flash sync speed 1/200
(means highest shutter speed that can be used with flash as a fill flash)

Yes, I know what it means , thanks, and I hardly ever use flash. When I do, it’s usually macro flash with a low guide number for a static subject, so the top[ speed is immaterial…

20D
Larger Body size for bigger hands

If I need a larger size after I’ve used it for a while, I’ll add the BG-E3 grip..

20D
Magnesium Alloy body for clumsy people like me 🙂

LOL! Actually, I’ve had several polycarbonate bodied cameras and they’ve been bumped, dropped and generally ill-used and yet I’ve never had a problem with them. Indeed, the only camera I have that even shows that it’s been dropped is an EOS 600 which has a small crack near the screen on the top of the camera and which has had that crack for ten years now without it ever causing a problem 🙂

(actually the higher sync speed is the main reason, the shutter speed is a nice bonus, the others were not really important to me)

the rest of this is boring dribble you can feel free to skip (just me feeling sorry for myself)

LOL! No, I can never resist answering these things 🙂

for a $300 price difference on a camera not likely to drop below $400 anytime in the next 5 or so years, I’d rather spend the extra and not be put in a
situation where I "NEED" that extra 1/50 of a second on my shutter speed, or my camera got knocked out of my hands by someone bumping into me and the body
cracked or dented in a way that hampers its functionality.

See above 🙂

I am just getting into professional photography and have my first job at a professional studio, but I have a degree in photography and have been doing it and
loving it for 10 years now. The studio I work at has several 35mm and 4×5 format cameras I can use for any job, but only has 1 digital and its a 5.7 megapixel
at the owner almost always needs. So I am opting for something that I hope will benefit me and my needs better (I understand everyone has different needs and
bases their decisions on them).

I’ve been in professional photography since 1986. I don’t have a degree in it (though I’ve got one in Biochemistry <g>) and I use 4 bodies (EOS 1, 1N, 100, 600) soon to be 5 when the 350D arrives. I prefer light cameras due to disability, but I wouldn’t say no to an EOS 1Ds II which will be my next target should the 350D prove that it’s worth shooting digital. 🙂

In 1997 I bought a Sony DSC-600 (I think that was the model) for $1850, and another $1000 worth of accessories. IT was the hottest, newest thing available and
I bought it the day it was released on the market. A 1.3 megapixel digital SLR, the first consumer market model. It had a Carl Zeiss (sp?) lens and all kinds
of "neat" functions (at least I thought so back then, now every digital camera can do everything that one could). And I loved it, but many were the times when
I had wished I had waited 2 months and gotten the 3.2 megapixel model that came out, as while I took some great photos the 6 years I used that camera, I only
printed 1 and there was good reason for it (as anyone who has ever seen a 1.3 megapixel image will know). So I spent close to $3000 on an expensive toy that
taught me much and improved my "eye" and skill, but ruined my chances at owning something more "useful" as I could not afford another digital camera after that
one. so anyway, I am very careful (even with the little things) these days when making an expensive purchase, to ensure I will not regret spending a little
more to get something more useful.

Understand. When you’re starting out these things weigh more heavily. For me the 350D is just an experiment. I’ll still be shooting lots of Velvia, Tri-X and so forth. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:30:16 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

just out of curiosity, seeing that you have been taking photos for 10 years or so, how often have you:
– needed to shoot at shutter speeds in excess of 1/4000 sec
[….]

Fast shutter speeds can be a good thing. This one was 1/1600 sec. Faster would have been better!
http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

Nice, but I’d have used a *slower* speed. For me, the image is too static and almost makes them look stuffed. A slower speed would allow for the beating wings to blur making, IMHO, a more effective image. These things are subjective of course. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:27:12 +0100, Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:07:02 GMT, callme annie
wrote:

Interesting, I decided to throw out the extra money on the 20D for the following differences…
20D
5 fps for up to 23 frames
350D
3 fps for up to 14 frames

Don’t need the extra 2fps…

20D
9 AF focal points
350D
7 AF focal points

I can focus with 1 AF focus point – any more is just a luxury I can live without…

The 20D let you pick any of the 9 points singly.

snipped

Understand. When you’re starting out these things weigh more heavily. For me the 350D is just an experiment. I’ll still be shooting lots of Velvia, Tri-X and so forth. 🙂

I hope it’s not Velvia 50 as it is has been discontinued.

http://photojpn.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=914

********************************************************

"The condition of civil affairs in Texas is anomalous, singular, and unsatisfactory."

Maj. Gen. Philip H. Sherdan
to
Bvt. Maj. Gen. John A. Rawlins
November 14, 1866

Hecate wrote in
news::

And, I’m sorry to say, crap at both speeds. A faster lens is far more use…

Actually, a fast lens and "simulated 3200" (actually about ISO4000, with less noise than any film I’ve seen at that sensitivity) has yielded some spectacular night shots for me – I’ll post a link when the next issue of a magazine or two go up.

Come to think of it, it’s worked bloody marvelously in publications such as National Geographic as well.

The 20D is a killer do-everything camera, Hecate. What I found to be it’s shortcomings are:

Dim viewfinder (though about as bright as you can expect from the mirror size), not enough contrast for manual focus under a lot of circumstances. You can, of course, replace the focusing screen with some better glass, but that is a pain.

I’d love the industry-leading low noise to be even lower (larger sensor size would solve these first two just fine, as the 1d MKII proves).

Not very fast "high speed sync".

Some accesories are absurdly expensive, such as the Canon manual release cable, remote trigger, and the damned wireless adaptor.

Butthead engineers mounted the AF assist beam on the pop-up flash (did you dumbasses never shoot low-light photography?). Also present on Canon speedlights and the IR remote unit, none of which are especially cheap.

The (other?) butthead engineers who came up with the IR remote system should be beaten with rubber hoses for every time I’ve moved slightly and my flashes failed to fire.

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

And while that sounds like a lot of bitching, most of the same issues plague the competition, and you’d have to pony up two or three thousand more to get a consistently better body by anyone.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

just out of curiosity, seeing that you have been taking photos for 10 years or so, how often have you:
– needed to shoot at shutter speeds in excess of 1/4000 sec
[….]

Fast shutter speeds can be a good thing. This one was 1/1600 sec. Faster would have been better!
http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

Gee, great shot jjs!!! Which country are you in? We don’t have that kind of wildlife where I live, although we do have our own kind. You did well to capture that one.

Out of curiosity, did you get that one shot by good timing, or did you use a motordrive and rattle of a series of shots?

All the best,
Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 16:30:16 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

just out of curiosity, seeing that you have been taking photos for 10 years or so, how often have you:
– needed to shoot at shutter speeds in excess of 1/4000 sec
[….]

Fast shutter speeds can be a good thing. This one was 1/1600 sec. Faster would have been better!
http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

Nice, but I’d have used a *slower* speed. For me, the image is too static and almost makes them look stuffed. A slower speed would allow for the beating wings to blur making, IMHO, a more effective image. These things are subjective of course. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

It can also be a matter of timing. JJS may have suddenly seen some action taking place, or about to take place, and literally turned the camera on to auto and grabbed what he could. Not being there, I don’t know what he did, of course. I know what you are saying though, a bit like some of those racing car shots where the car looks parked.

Regards,
Brian.

Eric Gill wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And, I’m sorry to say, crap at both speeds. A faster lens is far more use…

Actually, a fast lens and "simulated 3200" (actually about ISO4000, with less noise than any film I’ve seen at that sensitivity) has yielded some spectacular night shots for me – I’ll post a link when the next issue of a magazine or two go up.

Come to think of it, it’s worked bloody marvelously in publications such as National Geographic as well.

The 20D is a killer do-everything camera, Hecate. What I found to be it’s shortcomings are:

Dim viewfinder (though about as bright as you can expect from the mirror size), not enough contrast for manual focus under a lot of circumstances. You can, of course, replace the focusing screen with some better glass, but that is a pain.

I’d love the industry-leading low noise to be even lower (larger sensor size would solve these first two just fine, as the 1d MKII proves).
Not very fast "high speed sync".

Some accesories are absurdly expensive, such as the Canon manual release cable, remote trigger, and the damned wireless adaptor.

Butthead engineers mounted the AF assist beam on the pop-up flash (did you dumbasses never shoot low-light photography?). Also present on Canon speedlights and the IR remote unit, none of which are especially cheap.
The (other?) butthead engineers who came up with the IR remote system should be beaten with rubber hoses for every time I’ve moved slightly and my flashes failed to fire.

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.
And while that sounds like a lot of bitching, most of the same issues plague the competition, and you’d have to pony up two or three thousand more to get a consistently better body by anyone.

So when are you starting work at Canon, Mr. Gill? Just kidding, I am right into Canon myself. That was interesting reading, thanks for all the pros and cons.

Best regards,
Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

Gee, great shot jjs!!! Which country are you in?

Photographer Rick McCarty made that picture on the Mississippi River, just south of La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA. I live thirty miles north on the same river.

The Bald Eagle has made such a terrific recovery here that they are quite common.

Correction on the photographer’s credit.
It is Rick McGarry.
Darned spell-checker.

"Brian" wrote in message

It can also be a matter of timing. JJS may have suddenly seen some action taking place, or about to take place, and literally turned the camera on to auto and grabbed what he could. […]

Rick McGarry spent many hours waiting and watching and making pictures to make that and several other most-excellent images.

But let me say something about these "automatic" cameras (autofocus, autoexposure, frames-per-second (and motordrive film)) cameras. One word: Balderdash!

When the right picture exists within 1/1000th of a second, no motordrive or 9FPS camera will find it for you. Do the arithmetic. And I don’t care how many autofocus-points a camera has, the photographer has to make decisions to earn his grits. Turning one’s fate over to frames-per-second and autofocus is just spinning the wheel of fortune.

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP. Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What would that extra 4 MP get you?

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

It can also be a matter of timing. JJS may have suddenly seen some action taking place, or about to take place, and literally turned the camera on to auto and grabbed what he could. […]

Rick McGarry spent many hours waiting and watching and making pictures to make that and several other most-excellent images.

But let me say something about these "automatic" cameras (autofocus, autoexposure, frames-per-second (and motordrive film)) cameras. One word: Balderdash!

When the right picture exists within 1/1000th of a second, no motordrive or 9FPS camera will find it for you. Do the arithmetic. And I don’t care how many autofocus-points a camera has, the photographer has to make decisions to earn his grits. Turning one’s fate over to frames-per-second and autofocus is just spinning the wheel of fortune.

Well, it is a combination of both really. You definitely need the metering, pre-focus, anticipation skills,etc., to get a shot of the nature you have shown here. But, a motordrive will "help" ensure you get the perfect shot. As you said, the time to react is so tiny that your chances of getting everything perfect in one click is almost zero (in that type of photography). Holding down the shutter button and capturing, say 10fps on some cameras, would certainly "increase" ones chances of getting the particular shot he/she wanted.
Imagine a diver at the olympics doing one of those fancy dives. If you can manage to capture 30 frames as the diver somersaults through the air, there is a good chance that one will be GREAT. There will be a lot of similar shots, but a tiny difference in one particular frame may make it a winner.

Auto exposure is fine in an evenly lit, average coloured scene. On an overcast day with a plain background, there is no special metering requirement in a lot of cases. I have found Canon metering to be excellent. The autofocus is also better than my eyesight, that is for sure. Use it correctly and I would challenge you to match it manually.

Good topic you raise though, jjs. There is no question, at the end of the day, that you have to know what you are doing. The average point and shooter does just that – points and prays. They shoot a backlit scene and wonder why their subjects are all under-exposed.

Have a good one,
Brian.

wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP. Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What would that extra 4 MP get you?

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

I would love to see images off both. I know there are sites that do show sample images from various cameras, but I am amazed at times the out of focus shots they post. Out of focus images from cameras which have excellent focusing systems! I would love to see a shot you have taken, Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

All the best,
Brian.

wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP. Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What would that extra 4 MP get you?

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

The main difference with the 8MP vs 12MP is image size. You can get a bigger print from the 12MP. A 2nd benefit is if you want to crop the image. Depending on how much of the image is being cropped, with the 12MP image you may be able to crop the image to look perfect and the image may still be as big as the ‘whole’ image taken on the 8MP camera (uncropped).
If that extra size is not important to you (it is certainly a potential benefit to have up one’s sleeve) then going for the much cheaper 8MP makes sense (assuming all other important features of the cameras are comparable).

Regards,
Brian.

"jjs" wrote in message

"Brian" wrote in message

http://mk31.image.pbase.com/u39/huffychicken/upload/25837749 ._ps_crop_small_CRW_3365.jpg

Gee, great shot jjs!!! Which country are you in?

Photographer Rick McCarty made that picture

Correction: Rick McGarry

:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP.

Indeed.

Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What
would that extra 4 MP get you?

Are you kidding?

Not having to upscale for full bleed magazine covers, and/or some latitude in framing springs to mind.

Not having to upscale for full-bleed magazine spreads (as much).

Much greater detail for fashion ads (i.e., better able to compete with high-end Medium format, Mimaya or leaf digital backs, or larger than medium format film).

Most everything I shoot would benefit.

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

Indeed, as the craptacular Fuji "not really 12 megapixel" bodies prove.

Brian wrote in news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):

http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Brian wrote in

news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display

aRGB

– it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

That pic is almost too detailed. It looks like she has some kind of gelcoat on her face.

Eric Gill wrote:

Brian wrote in news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

Wow, that was quick Eric. Thanks very much. That is terrific, just the quality I was hoping for. A lot of digital images are nowhere near as clear as that and show some kind of artefacts/haziness? where the whites of the eyes disappear behind the skin. Not a pixellated look, but fuzzy somehow. I am impressed with the quality of that image.

Very elegant lady too, your wife perhaps? 🙂 I would show you a pic of the girl I am chasing, but the only image I have of her is off a 3.1MP Kodak (toy) camera. I have never photographed her properly (yet).

Thanks again, Eric, that really reminds me it is time to go digital. I love the convenience of digital.

Brian.

Eric Gill wrote:

:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP.

Indeed.

Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What
would that extra 4 MP get you?

Are you kidding?

Not having to upscale for full bleed magazine covers, and/or some latitude in framing springs to mind.

Not having to upscale for full-bleed magazine spreads (as much).
Much greater detail for fashion ads (i.e., better able to compete with high-end Medium format, Mimaya or leaf digital backs, or larger than medium format film).

Most everything I shoot would benefit.

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

Indeed, as the craptacular Fuji "not really 12 megapixel" bodies prove.

Are you aware Eric that Canon have a camera with over 16.6MP ? I downloaded an image from that a few weeks ago and that was pretty spectacular. The size of the image was 4992 x 3328 pixels.

Brian 🙂

Brian wrote in news::

Are you aware Eric that Canon have a camera with over 16.6MP ?

Oh, yes.

I’m also aware that it’s over $7,000 USD.

It’s also not really as good a general purpose camera as the 20D or 1d MKII.

I
downloaded an image from that a few weeks ago and that was pretty spectacular. The size of the image was 4992 x 3328 pixels.

Yeah, I’d love it.

I’ll let everyone know when I’m tired of being married.

Brian wrote in
news::

Eric Gill wrote:

Brian wrote in
news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

Wow, that was quick Eric.

Deadline today. A mixture of absolute rushing panic and nothing to do when waiting for something.

Thanks very much. That is terrific,

Thanks.

just the
quality I was hoping for. A lot of digital images are nowhere near as clear as that and show some kind of artefacts/haziness? where the whites of the eyes disappear behind the skin. Not a pixellated look, but fuzzy somehow. I am impressed with the quality of that image.

Good camera with a good lens and good lights. The lens is the Canon Compact Macro 50, which is better than any $250USD lens has any right to be. The lights were in a TV production studio locally.

Very elegant lady too, your wife perhaps? 🙂

Good god, no. I’d be divorced in an afternoon after one of her six-diet- cokes-in-the-morning fixes.

I would show you a pic
of the girl I am chasing, but the only image I have of her is off a
3.1MP Kodak (toy) camera. I have never photographed her properly
(yet).

Well, that’s about a mine field right there. I’ve never been able to take a shot of my wife she hasn’t complained about – and now is mad that I don’t try anymore.

Thanks again, Eric, that really reminds me it is time to go digital. I love the convenience of digital.

Can’t be beat for seat of the pants, deadlines are already past and now you have to make up for someone else being unorganized type work.

Hecate wrote:

snip<

I still owe you an image – I haven’t forgotten. When I get my web space set up I’ll put a few there. 🙂

snip

Anytime soon?
🙂

Stephane

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 07:01:24 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

It can also be a matter of timing. JJS may have suddenly seen some action taking place, or about to take place, and literally turned the camera on to auto and grabbed what he could. […]

Rick McGarry spent many hours waiting and watching and making pictures to make that and several other most-excellent images.

But let me say something about these "automatic" cameras (autofocus, autoexposure, frames-per-second (and motordrive film)) cameras. One word: Balderdash!

When the right picture exists within 1/1000th of a second, no motordrive or 9FPS camera will find it for you. Do the arithmetic. And I don’t care how many autofocus-points a camera has, the photographer has to make decisions to earn his grits. Turning one’s fate over to frames-per-second and autofocus is just spinning the wheel of fortune.

Yes, absolutely. For action shots you really need manual, plus your own instincts. Of course, you can use AI servo for, say, birds coming towards you. That works well – but waiting for the correct moment requires anticipation and, as far as I know, even Canon haven’t built that in yet. 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 02:45:24 GMT, John A. Stovall
wrote:

I can focus with 1 AF focus point – any more is just a luxury I can live without…

The 20D let you pick any of the 9 points singly.

And that makes a difference because…?

Understand. When you’re starting out these things weigh more heavily. For me the 350D is just an experiment. I’ll still be shooting lots of Velvia, Tri-X and so forth. 🙂

I hope it’s not Velvia 50 as it is has been discontinued.
http://photojpn.org/bbs/viewtopic.php?p=914

I know. That’s why I have a fridge full of the stuff. And when that’s finished I’ll be moving on to Velvia 100 (along with Velvia 100F which takes up the room in my fridge not already occupied by Velvia 50 and Tri-X.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 05:19:52 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And, I’m sorry to say, crap at both speeds. A faster lens is far more use…

Actually, a fast lens and "simulated 3200" (actually about ISO4000, with less noise than any film I’ve seen at that sensitivity) has yielded some spectacular night shots for me – I’ll post a link when the next issue of a magazine or two go up.

Good. I’d like to see that. Generally, though, I work at slower film speeds as detail is far more important for me. When I do need speed it’s usually in B&W and I just uprate my Tri-X.

The 20D is a killer do-everything camera, Hecate. What I found to be it’s shortcomings are:

I believe you, already 🙂

<snip>

And while that sounds like a lot of bitching, most of the same issues plague the competition, and you’d have to pony up two or three thousand more to get a consistently better body by anyone.

I think generally, the competition are trailing. If I like the 350D, then I shall be saving up for the 1Ds II. But, I do need my cameras light (I hardly use my 1 and 1n now) so I always have 1 light, 1 bomb proof for each system. So the 350D won’t be a waste.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:11:58 GMT, wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP. Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What would that extra 4 MP get you?

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

There is very little difference at all. Both use a CMOS sensor. The size difference is infinitesimal, and they both use the same DIGIC 2 processor.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:14:14 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Are you aware Eric that Canon have a camera with over 16.6MP ? I downloaded an image from that a few weeks ago and that was pretty spectacular. The size of the image was 4992 x 3328 pixels.

Of course he is. He’s also aware that it’s as good as having medium format. But, like me, he’s also aware of the price 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:58:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Brian wrote in news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

Is she doing anything tonight? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote in
news::

I think generally, the competition are trailing. If I like the 350D, then I shall be saving up for the 1Ds II.

Oh, I think you will. Hopefully your choice will be the 1Ds MKIII in reasonably short order, though.

But, I do need my cameras
light (I hardly use my 1 and 1n now) so I always have 1 light, 1 bomb proof for each system. So the 350D won’t be a waste.

Well, it’s hard to argue that. My 20D with battery handle, flash and that monster Sigma 70-00 is bloody heavy, and I’ve missed a few shots to hand shake when very tired with that setup.

I’m looking to get a P-n-S for a variety of reason, light being one of them.

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:58:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Brian wrote in
news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

Is she doing anything tonight? 😉

Good Lord, woman- don’t hand me straight lines like that!

Hecate wrote in
news::

Good. I’d like to see that.

Well, here’s a preview:

http://www.nightskyimages.net/intown-proof-web/pages/000032. htm

This is a spread. Click over to page 32 to see the other side.

Yes, it’s noisy. But the results are dramatic, I think, and I took no flash with me that evening.

Generally, though, I work at slower film
speeds as detail is far more important for me. When I do need speed it’s usually in B&W and I just uprate my Tri-X.

I think you’ll like being able to dial your "film" speed up.

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

But let me say something about these "automatic" cameras (autofocus, autoexposure, frames-per-second (and motordrive film)) cameras. One word: Balderdash!

When the right picture exists within 1/1000th of a second, no motordrive or 9FPS camera will find it for you. Do the arithmetic. And I don’t care how many autofocus-points a camera has, the photographer has to make decisions to earn his grits. Turning one’s fate over to frames-per-second and autofocus is just spinning the wheel of fortune.

Well, it is a combination of both really. You definitely need the metering, pre-focus, anticipation skills,etc., to get a shot of the nature you have shown here. But, a motordrive will "help" ensure you get the perfect shot. […]

With no disrespect intended; I was a career news photographer and had the great good fortune to work with a few others who lived in the Real World making pictures, including some that did sports photography – for over thirty-five years. One of those persons has been a friend of mine all that time. He is a party of three Pulitzers, BTW. The ONLY thing a ‘motor drive’ did for him was to briefly advance the film (or lately, the next digital capture) to the next opportunity. He _never_ shotguns events. This man is humble and I respect his wish not to be named. He lives a fraction of a second in the future and does amazing work. He is a Real photographer.

Digital shotgunners will only rarely, and accidentally accomplish what my associate has. The average and above-average photographer’s ‘shotgun’ work is only as a matter of the statistics of randomness; they will never capture what my associate does with his knowledge, experience and expertise. He knows the moment and he gets it. That’s what Photography is all about: being there and making the right image. The rest is bullshit mechanics.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

That’s just scary. Is she alive, or a corpse with the eyes propped open?

Hecate wrote in
news::

The 20D let you pick any of the 9 points singly.

And that makes a difference because…?

It allows excellent control of just where your focus lands in a pic, instead of an overall average that made lead to some serious compromises, espcially with a great DOF.

Does the 350 really not allow this?

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

But let me say something about these "automatic" cameras (autofocus, autoexposure, frames-per-second (and motordrive film)) cameras. One word: Balderdash!

When the right picture exists within 1/1000th of a second, no motordrive or 9FPS camera will find it for you. Do the arithmetic. And I don’t care how many autofocus-points a camera has, the photographer has to make decisions to earn his grits. Turning one’s fate over to frames-per-second and autofocus is just spinning the wheel of fortune.

Well, it is a combination of both really. You definitely need the metering, pre-focus, anticipation skills,etc., to get a shot of the nature you have shown here. But, a motordrive will "help" ensure you get the perfect shot. […]

With no disrespect intended; I was a career news photographer and had the great good fortune to work with a few others who lived in the Real World making pictures, including some that did sports photography – for over thirty-five years. One of those persons has been a friend of mine all that time. He is a party of three Pulitzers, BTW. The ONLY thing a ‘motor drive’ did for him was to briefly advance the film (or lately, the next digital capture) to the next opportunity. He _never_ shotguns events. This man is humble and I respect his wish not to be named. He lives a fraction of a second in the future and does amazing work. He is a Real photographer.
Digital shotgunners will only rarely, and accidentally accomplish what my associate has. The average and above-average photographer’s ‘shotgun’ work is only as a matter of the statistics of randomness; they will never capture what my associate does with his knowledge, experience and expertise. He knows the moment and he gets it. That’s what Photography is all about: being there and making the right image. The rest is bullshit mechanics.

Well what you are saying is like the "ideal". I personally have never used a motordrive in my life, other than playing with it on my first camera that could shoot 5 fps (turned out it could shoot 6). That was the first and last time. I am with you, on anticipation and being prepared. I have to admit though, I am not a sports or nature photographer.

In the Real World, however, a large percentage of photographers are not ‘all that’. Just take a look at some of the stats on numbers of images taken for Calendar shoots, etc. It is not uncommon to hear of 1500-2000 pics taken to choose about 12-18 shots for the final product. I have always been against that, personally, if I need 12 really good shots, I might play it safe and shoot a few rolls of 36. That is more for getting a better "choice", not because I need 108 shots to get 12.

I still believe though that "no-one" can get it right every time in one shot. Motordrives are great for what they were made for. Look at it this way; say your friend takes one shot and it is a beautiful shot. He timed it spot on and grabbed the shot where he intended to. What if the equally talented photographer next to him pressed the shutter a fraction of a second before him and held it down a second or so after him. In that burst, he may have captured the same shot as your friend…PLUS…a whole host of similar ones where one looked even better! So who was the smarter photographer? At the end of the day, the better shot will be the one the client wants.

I would be interested to hear from anyone in this NG who actually uses a motordrive and what his/her thoughts and results are.

Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:58:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Brian wrote in news::

I would love to see a shot you have taken,
Eric, just to see the real quality of the EOS 20D.

Well, okay.

Warning: full-sized image (i.e., really big for a web browser):
http://www.nightskyimages.net/_MG_9732.jpg

Best if you save it off and view it in an application that can display aRGB – it loses a lot of vibrancy otherwise.

And I really need to retouch it. Whatever.

Is she doing anything tonight? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate!! you are shocking, whatever would your partner say. Actually, I can guess, so don’t answer that one. I could show you a pic of a nice single girl, shame she is over here in Australia though 🙂

Be good,
Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:11:58 GMT, wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP. Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What would that extra 4 MP get you?

Although both the D20 and the 350D are ~8 MP, they use different sensors, which can make a big difference.

There is very little difference at all. Both use a CMOS sensor. The size difference is infinitesimal, and they both use the same DIGIC 2 processor.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

You tell em girl!! LOL

Eric Gill wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

Good. I’d like to see that.

Well, here’s a preview:

http://www.nightskyimages.net/intown-proof-web/pages/000032. htm
This is a spread. Click over to page 32 to see the other side.
Yes, it’s noisy. But the results are dramatic, I think, and I took no flash with me that evening.

Generally, though, I work at slower film
speeds as detail is far more important for me. When I do need speed it’s usually in B&W and I just uprate my Tri-X.

I think you’ll like being able to dial your "film" speed up.

Hecate/Eric,

what are you thoughts on colour accuracy of the digitals? Just looking at what I have seen from point and shoot cameras, the skin tones seem a lot more accurate than images coming off average point and shoot film cameras (certainly when printed at crappy one hour labs). I have seen several of my friends move from p&s film to p&s digital. Their images have gone from dismal to "not bad". The shots are still blurred half the time (focused on the wrong object, handshake, no flash at slow shutter speeds. etc) but seem really well exposed and colour balanced. Even my toy Kodak can shoot flash from about 4 ft away and will not over-expose the shot!

Regards,
Brian.

p.s. Hecate, did you go for the black or the silver body?

"Brian" wrote in message

At the end of the day, the better shot will be the
one the client wants.

AMEN, the motto of any pro photographer, artist etc., worth their salt.

I would be interested to hear from anyone in this NG who actually uses a motordrive and what his/her thoughts and results are.
Brian.

Many times I pull out my old Canon AE-1 for shooting action shots, turn on the old motor drive and
burst about 3 shots at a time. That said, I always make sure the first shot is the one I want. And, ironically,
the best shot I’ve had put on a cover was the third in a burst of five. Go figure.
This thread has become a bit too elitist in it’s theory. It’s not all that complicated.

"Brian" wrote in message

[…] It is not uncommon to hear of 1500-2000 pics taken to choose about 12-18 shots for the final product. […]

That does it. I’m now committed to hand-held 4×5 sheet film.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

[…] It is not uncommon to hear of 1500-2000 pics taken to choose about 12-18 shots for the final product. […]

That does it. I’m now committed to hand-held 4×5 sheet film.

You are a real character jjs. That brought a smile to my face 🙂

Eric Gill wrote:

:

Eric Gill wrote:

I’d love to have about 12 MP at the same noise level or lower.

The D20 is 8 MP.

Indeed.

Is your wish actually 12 MP at any noise level? What
would that extra 4 MP get you?

Are you kidding?

Not having to upscale for full bleed magazine covers, and/or some latitude in framing springs to mind.

Not having to upscale for full-bleed magazine spreads (as much).
Much greater detail for fashion ads (i.e., better able to compete with high-end Medium format, Mimaya or leaf digital backs, or larger than medium format film).

Most everything I shoot would benefit.

OK, my question was indeed a troll.

I scan 35mm slides at 4000dpi and print at ~300ppi to 13"x19" without having to upsample. An image from an 8 meg digital camera will need to be upsampled to print a 13"x19" at ~300ppi. Yet many have claimed that 13"x19" prints from an 8 meg digital camera rivals those from 4000dpi scans.

Have you been able to make such a comparison with you D20 images?

Eric Gill wrote:

Well, that’s about a mine field right there. I’ve never been able to take a shot of my wife she hasn’t complained about – and now is mad that I don’t try anymore.

With Photoshop retouching, Twiggy can look like Pam Anderson, and vice versa. How can anyone complain? <g>

:

OK, my question was indeed a troll.

I scan 35mm slides at 4000dpi and print at ~300ppi to 13"x19" without having to upsample. An image from an 8 meg digital camera will need to be upsampled to print a 13"x19" at ~300ppi. Yet many have claimed that 13"x19" prints from an 8 meg digital camera rivals those from 4000dpi scans.

Have you been able to make such a comparison with you D20 images?

Yes. What I’m finding is that film blows up on a scanner with fewer artifacts than, say, upsampling in photoshop because the film grain is round and aliased to the background. The larger you get, the softer you get, but no ugly artifacting.

OTOH, low noise digital files upsample quite well unless you get crazy with the amount, and past a certain point you don’t really need to bother, since your original is going to be viewed from a gradually greater and greater distances. At least with applications such as your poster example.

What I want is greater detail from magazine reading distances, which 35mm pretty much lacks as well.

:

Eric Gill wrote:

Well, that’s about a mine field right there. I’ve never been able to take a shot of my wife she hasn’t complained about – and now is mad that I don’t try anymore.

With Photoshop retouching, Twiggy can look like Pam Anderson, and vice versa. How can anyone complain? <g>

One of these days I’m going to finish my book, "The Survival Guide to an Italian-Irish Wife."

I figure with around three hundred pages or so, I can properly answer that question.

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, absolutely. For action shots you really need manual, plus your own instincts. Of course, you can use AI servo for, say, birds coming towards you. That works well – but waiting for the correct moment requires anticipation and, as far as I know, even Canon haven’t built that in yet. 😉

You need my "Decisive Moment Indicator" plug-in.

Brian wrote in
news::

<snip>

Hecate/Eric,

what are you thoughts on colour accuracy of the digitals?

Surprisingly good, with good saturation, in full auto, at least on my Canon bodies.

The ETTL-2 flash works pretty well in full auto, too.

Major weaknesses of auto on the low-end Canon dSLRs includes only using jpegs and only using ALL autofocus points, which can lead to some pretty bad compromises.

That and the fact that I sincerely believe that machines cannot resist the temptation to screw you royally when you need them most.

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

That does it. I’m now committed to hand-held 4×5 sheet film.

You are a real character jjs. That brought a smile to my face 🙂

But I am serious. I actually started using hand-held 4×5 in earnest a few months ago. I love the bokeh from a 135mm Planar lens at 5.6.

"Eric Gill" wrote:

One of these days I’m going to finish my book, "The Survival Guide to an Italian-Irish Wife."

Good god, mon! Hereabouts such breeds have to be registered under the national defense weapons charter!

"jjs" wrote in message

"Brian" wrote in message

[…] It is not uncommon to hear of 1500-2000 pics taken to choose about 12-18 shots for the final product. […]

Steve Bruhn, who covers AMA MX and Supercross takes nearly 3000 shots at any event using 2 or 3 digital nikons. He sends out about 75 of them.

"jjs" wrote in news::

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

That does it. I’m now committed to hand-held 4×5 sheet film.

You are a real character jjs. That brought a smile to my face 🙂

But I am serious. I actually started using hand-held 4×5 in earnest a few months ago. I love the bokeh from a 135mm Planar lens at 5.6.

I would hope so.

Now tell him what it cost.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

But I am serious. I actually started using hand-held 4×5 in earnest a few months ago. I love the bokeh from a 135mm Planar lens at 5.6.

I would hope so.
Now tell him what it cost.

The lens alone? Not much, but I understand they have become rare and popular. I’d hate to have to replace it.

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, absolutely. For action shots you really need manual, plus your own instincts. Of course, you can use AI servo for, say, birds coming towards you. That works well – but waiting for the correct moment requires anticipation and, as far as I know, even Canon haven’t built that in yet. 😉

You need my "Decisive Moment Indicator" plug-in.

I wonder if the latest Canons still have the old hnadshake warning indicators? In some modes the shutter speed would flash to tell you it was too slow for handheld shots (without flash) with that particular lens focal length. Or you could actually select handshake mode…now that was a great learning tool!! If you were dead still, nothing would happen in the viewfinder. If you were slightly shaking….only about as much as the average non-pro, a little picture of a camera with shake lines around it would appear at the bottom of the viewfinder. I used to use this to practice handholding the camera at very low shutter speeds. I have a photo of a fox, just peeping over a pile of junk, that I took many years ago with a long 400mm lens handheld at 1/30th second. It is actually quite sharp. The salesman in the shop had told me I would defiitely need a tripod with that lens….apparently not!

Brian.

wrote:

Eric Gill wrote:

Well, that’s about a mine field right there. I’ve never been able to take a shot of my wife she hasn’t complained about – and now is mad that I don’t try anymore.

With Photoshop retouching, Twiggy can look like Pam Anderson, and vice versa. How can anyone complain? <g>

Why would poor Twiggy want a face like Pamela Anderson? Have you seen pics of her without all the glamour make-up? Then again, maybe you weren’t talking about the face LOL.
When I was learning all about retouching and manipulation, I used to reshape bodies and glamorise faces, etc., all the time. I always planned to create the perfect woman, but never got around to it.

Me bad.

Brian.

Eric Gill wrote:

:

OK, my question was indeed a troll.

I scan 35mm slides at 4000dpi and print at ~300ppi to 13"x19" without having to upsample. An image from an 8 meg digital camera will need to be upsampled to print a 13"x19" at ~300ppi. Yet many have claimed that 13"x19" prints from an 8 meg digital camera rivals those from 4000dpi scans.

Have you been able to make such a comparison with you D20 images?

Yes. What I’m finding is that film blows up on a scanner with fewer artifacts than, say, upsampling in photoshop because the film grain is round and aliased to the background. The larger you get, the softer you get, but no ugly artifacting.

OTOH, low noise digital files upsample quite well unless you get crazy with the amount, and past a certain point you don’t really need to bother, since your original is going to be viewed from a gradually greater and greater distances. At least with applications such as your poster example.
What I want is greater detail from magazine reading distances, which 35mm pretty much lacks as well.

I would like to see a sample scan you have produced with your 4000dpi scans. Eric posted one of his images and it was very detailed with no graininess, being digital and the subject well lit. Is there any apparent grain in your scans?
I ask this for a reason. A grain-free razor sharp image may print as well, or even better, at 200dpi than a grainy image at 300dpi. I am not implying for one second that your scans are grainy, I am just saying it can happen. Is it possible for you to upload a scan somewhere? I find if I have to scan a print, especially a 6" x 4" (negative not available), the image scanned to the size of Eric’s digital image would have to be scanned at 600dpi. I can see grain in the image at the size and I believe it would not print as well as the digital camera image. Scanning negative is another story, of course.

Regards,
Brian.

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:19:38 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, absolutely. For action shots you really need manual, plus your own instincts. Of course, you can use AI servo for, say, birds coming towards you. That works well – but waiting for the correct moment requires anticipation and, as far as I know, even Canon haven’t built that in yet. 😉

You need my "Decisive Moment Indicator" plug-in.

LOL!

Does that work with the "CSI Infinite Blow Up" plugin for when you haven’t got a long enough lens?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:03:25 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

The 20D let you pick any of the 9 points singly.

And that makes a difference because…?

It allows excellent control of just where your focus lands in a pic, instead of an overall average that made lead to some serious compromises, espcially with a great DOF.

Does the 350 really not allow this?

AFAIK, you can pick any of the seven points. As I intend to use the facility to set the centre point as the only point anyway, it doesn’t really matter to me. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:12:00 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

:

Eric Gill wrote:

Well, that’s about a mine field right there. I’ve never been able to take a shot of my wife she hasn’t complained about – and now is mad that I don’t try anymore.

With Photoshop retouching, Twiggy can look like Pam Anderson, and vice versa. How can anyone complain? <g>

One of these days I’m going to finish my book, "The Survival Guide to an Italian-Irish Wife."

I figure with around three hundred pages or so, I can properly answer that question.

Bellissimo! 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:55:37 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

I think generally, the competition are trailing. If I like the 350D, then I shall be saving up for the 1Ds II.

Oh, I think you will. Hopefully your choice will be the 1Ds MKIII in reasonably short order, though.

But, I do need my cameras
light (I hardly use my 1 and 1n now) so I always have 1 light, 1 bomb proof for each system. So the 350D won’t be a waste.

Well, it’s hard to argue that. My 20D with battery handle, flash and that monster Sigma 70-00 is bloody heavy, and I’ve missed a few shots to hand shake when very tired with that setup.

I’m looking to get a P-n-S for a variety of reason, light being one of them.

My point and shoot is going to be my old 600 with the 50mm f1.4 (which should really have a red stripe <g>). If I go completely digital (except for B&W – I’ve never seen a digital B&W image with the quality of film) then the 350D will be the Pand s.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:05:17 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

Good. I’d like to see that.

Well, here’s a preview:

http://www.nightskyimages.net/intown-proof-web/pages/000032. htm
This is a spread. Click over to page 32 to see the other side.
Yes, it’s noisy. But the results are dramatic, I think, and I took no flash with me that evening.

Pretty damn good actually 🙂

Generally, though, I work at slower film
speeds as detail is far more important for me. When I do need speed it’s usually in B&W and I just uprate my Tri-X.

I think you’ll like being able to dial your "film" speed up.

<g> I think if you’re a photojournalist, or cover sports (particularly indoor) then it’s a real benefit. For me, I don’t take shots that normally require the faster shutter speed. I often uprate film simply to get *more* grain. And, most of the time, I’m trying to keep the shutter speed *down* for low light.

Having said that, I do carry around a camera with a 50mm 1.4 lens attached as my grab shot camera, wherever I go, so the uprating ability would be useful then. But, in general, my photography tends to be at the "quality, before shot" end rather than the "get the shot, whatever" side of photography.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:41:55 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hecate/Eric,

what are you thoughts on colour accuracy of the digitals? Just looking at what I have seen from point and shoot cameras, the skin tones seem a lot more accurate than images coming off average point and shoot film cameras (certainly when printed at crappy one hour labs). I have seen several of my friends move from p&s film to p&s digital. Their images have gone from dismal to "not bad". The shots are still blurred half the time (focused on the wrong object, handshake, no flash at slow shutter speeds. etc) but seem really well exposed and colour balanced. Even my toy Kodak can shoot flash from about 4 ft away and will not over-expose the shot!

From what I’ve seen, DSLR shots are good, compacts not so good. I have a feeling it’s down to the sensor size.

Regards,
Brian.

p.s. Hecate, did you go for the black or the silver body?

Over here, I haven’t seen a silver one for sale. That could be to the universal reaction of "Yuck, doesn’t it look cheap" to the 300D in almost every camera review in the UK.

To be honest, if you could only get in silver I might have bought the 20D 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 13:20:08 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

That and the fact that I sincerely believe that machines cannot resist the temptation to screw you royally when you need them most.

If it can go wrong, it will. Which is why, as someone keeps producing film, I will always have a film camera with me. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 01:03:25 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

The 20D let you pick any of the 9 points singly.

And that makes a difference because…?

It allows excellent control of just where your focus lands in a pic, instead of an overall average that made lead to some serious compromises, espcially with a great DOF.

Does the 350 really not allow this?

AFAIK, you can pick any of the seven points. As I intend to use the facility to set the centre point as the only point anyway, it doesn’t really matter to me. 🙂

You’ll find uses for it. I often use one of the far-edge points when shooting a plate of food, so as to be able to frame plenty over the subject but have the plate in focus.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 20:41:55 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hecate/Eric,

what are you thoughts on colour accuracy of the digitals? Just looking at what I have seen from point and shoot cameras, the skin tones seem a lot more accurate than images coming off average point and shoot film cameras (certainly when printed at crappy one hour labs). I have seen several of my friends move from p&s film to p&s digital. Their images have gone from dismal to "not bad". The shots are still blurred half the time (focused on the wrong object, handshake, no flash at slow shutter speeds. etc) but seem really well exposed and colour balanced. Even my toy Kodak can shoot flash from about 4 ft away and will not over-expose the shot!

From what I’ve seen, DSLR shots are good, compacts not so good. I have a feeling it’s down to the sensor size.

Regards,
Brian.

p.s. Hecate, did you go for the black or the silver body?

Over here, I haven’t seen a silver one for sale. That could be to the universal reaction of "Yuck, doesn’t it look cheap" to the 300D in almost every camera review in the UK.

To be honest, if you could only get in silver I might have bought the 20D 😉

I know its not in the same class (or price) as the350 but what about the Panasonic FZ20 for a first digital camera (definitely non-pro use). I’m hoping the fairly decent zoom will compensate for somewhat lower resolution – my ‘action shots’ consist of my grandkids and wildlife in the Rockies.

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:55:37 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’m looking to get a P-n-S for a variety of reason, light being one of them.

My point and shoot is going to be my old 600 with the 50mm f1.4 (which should really have a red stripe <g>). If I go completely digital (except for B&W – I’ve never seen a digital B&W image with the quality of film) then the 350D will be the Pand s.

Well, some of the other reasons include having a reasonably decent hyperzoom ability (to keep from having to lug around or change lenses,) compose through lcd, and no shutter noise, to keep snotty rich folks from scowling at me at recitals and such.

IOW, all the things we give up for the SLR experience. I dunno if you’ve shot with a digital PnS before, but there are a number of nice things about them.

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:05:17 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Yes, it’s noisy. But the results are dramatic, I think, and I took no flash with me that evening.

Pretty damn good actually 🙂

Thank you, thank you.

Generally, though, I work at slower film
speeds as detail is far more important for me. When I do need speed it’s usually in B&W and I just uprate my Tri-X.

I think you’ll like being able to dial your "film" speed up.

<g> I think if you’re a photojournalist, or cover sports (particularly indoor) then it’s a real benefit. For me, I don’t take shots that normally require the faster shutter speed. I often uprate film simply to get *more* grain.

I thought everyone just used the "film grain" filter these days. ;-}

And, most of the time, I’m trying to keep the
shutter speed *down* for low light.

Well, the rules change when you’re not shooting a moving target, of course.

The only annoyance I’ve got with dSLRs for still subjects is that hyperfocus can be hard to achieve, since we’ve got a limit of around f/14 or so before diffraction starts making sharp focus impossible. Hopefully, they will find ways around this reasonably soon. I really miss using a good Contax lens at f/45 and having a room full of furniture in razor- sharp focus all across the field.

Having said that, I do carry around a camera with a 50mm 1.4 lens attached as my grab shot camera, wherever I go, so the uprating ability would be useful then. But, in general, my photography tends to be at the "quality, before shot" end rather than the "get the shot, whatever" side of photography.

I’m doing a little bit of everything, and your point is well taken. Digitals are a wet dream for journalism, but less so for other applications. This is changing. Hopefully, that 350 will be good enough to get you hooked, and it’s all downhill from there.

"Don" wrote in
news:IFdce.11085$:

I know its not in the same class (or price) as the350 but what about the Panasonic FZ20 for a first digital camera (definitely non-pro use). I’m hoping the fairly decent zoom will compensate for somewhat lower resolution – my ‘action shots’ consist of my grandkids and wildlife in the Rockies.

You’ll never notice. That camera is just about "Best of Breed" for non-slr digitals, with outstanding optics, speed and a built-in stabilizer. A good buy for a consumer.

Boy … just wait ’till I tell the guys down at ***CSI*** ’bout these two plugins …

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 08:19:38 -0500, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

You need my "Decisive Moment Indicator" plug-in.

LOL!

Does that work with the "CSI Infinite Blow Up" plugin for when you haven’t got a long enough lens?

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Velvia is gross, has a magenta shift, cannot push well, UGH. For humans it’s awful, hope you shoot plants.
Who uses film anymore except hobbyists. No AD/CD I know is willing to wait for film anymore or edit thousands of slides or pay for expensive scans? Especially when they can download the cards on the location site into their laptops and go home with a finished job the same day. And NO MORE film store & processing LAB Costs!!!Clients really love that part. And why do you want a heavy/big camera??

In the real world as you all say, it’s a matter of what you are trying to accomplish.

Shooting artsy still lifes where you have hours to meditate on the lighting and the fruit sits still OK the 4×5 will make nice work. have you ever modeled for a large format photo? It’s tedious to the model and a lot of pressure to get it right in one frame.

We happened to have a huge investment in Canon lenses so our first foray into digital is the CANON. (10D) It IS different from shooting film as far as exposures and the way a CCD sees light is more like a vid camera. BUT for older eyes, sun baked eyes, GOD bless them for putting multiple auto focus points (so many times the center is just not where you want to focus) to capture humans who move and blink in unpredictable ways why wouldn’t you want a motor drive or ability to shoot multiple frames? AI mode sometimes works well sometimes not so well, the good part is you can check your focus on the spot and re-do if it looks bad.

Bottom line is to know all the techniques old and new, use them where appropriate.

The digital also will require tripod more often with larger telephoto lenses. The newer lens have IS (stabilizing) built in like a vid camera and now I know why. Can’t wait to afford a new 70-280 and a 300 with IS.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:07:02 GMT, callme annie
wrote:

Interesting, I decided to throw out the extra money on the 20D for the following differences…

20D
5 fps for up to 23 frames
350D
3 fps for up to 14 frames

Don’t need the extra 2fps…

20D
9 AF focal points
350D
7 AF focal points

I can focus with 1 AF focus point – any more is just a luxury I can live without…

20D
offers up to 3200 ISO exposure sensitivity
350D
offers up to 1600 ISO exposure sensitivity

And, I’m sorry to say, crap at both speeds. A faster lens is far more use…

20D
30 – 1/8000 second shutter speeds
350D
30 – 1/4000 second shutter speeds

I have never, in 20 years, needed a shutter speed, faster than 1/4000 and that is very rarely.

20D
flash sync speed 1/250
350D
flash sync speed 1/200
(means highest shutter speed that can be used with flash as a fill flash)

Yes, I know what it means , thanks, and I hardly ever use flash. When I do, it’s usually macro flash with a low guide number for a static subject, so the top[ speed is immaterial…

20D
Larger Body size for bigger hands

If I need a larger size after I’ve used it for a while, I’ll add the BG-E3 grip..

20D
Magnesium Alloy body for clumsy people like me 🙂

LOL! Actually, I’ve had several polycarbonate bodied cameras and they’ve been bumped, dropped and generally ill-used and yet I’ve never had a problem with them. Indeed, the only camera I have that even shows that it’s been dropped is an EOS 600 which has a small crack near the screen on the top of the camera and which has had that crack for ten years now without it ever causing a problem 🙂

(actually the higher sync speed is the main reason, the shutter speed is a nice bonus, the others were not really important to me)

the rest of this is boring dribble you can feel free to skip (just me feeling sorry for myself)

LOL! No, I can never resist answering these things 🙂

for a $300 price difference on a camera not likely to drop below $400 anytime in the next 5 or so years, I’d rather spend the extra and not be put in a
situation where I "NEED" that extra 1/50 of a second on my shutter speed, or my camera got knocked out of my hands by someone bumping into me and the body
cracked or dented in a way that hampers its functionality.

See above 🙂

I am just getting into professional photography and have my first job at a professional studio, but I have a degree in photography and have been doing it and
loving it for 10 years now. The studio I work at has several 35mm and 4×5 format cameras I can use for any job, but only has 1 digital and its a 5.7 megapixel
at the owner almost always needs. So I am opting for something that I hope will benefit me and my needs better (I understand everyone has different needs and
bases their decisions on them).

I’ve been in professional photography since 1986. I don’t have a degree in it (though I’ve got one in Biochemistry <g>) and I use 4 bodies (EOS 1, 1N, 100, 600) soon to be 5 when the 350D arrives. I prefer light cameras due to disability, but I wouldn’t say no to an EOS 1Ds II which will be my next target should the 350D prove that it’s worth shooting digital. 🙂

In 1997 I bought a Sony DSC-600 (I think that was the model) for $1850, and another $1000 worth of accessories. IT was the hottest, newest thing available and
I bought it the day it was released on the market. A 1.3 megapixel digital SLR, the first consumer market model. It had a Carl Zeiss (sp?) lens and all kinds
of "neat" functions (at least I thought so back then, now every digital camera can do everything that one could). And I loved it, but many were the times when
I had wished I had waited 2 months and gotten the 3.2 megapixel model that came out, as while I took some great photos the 6 years I used that camera, I only
printed 1 and there was good reason for it (as anyone who has ever seen a
1.3 megapixel image will know). So I spent close to $3000 on an expensive
toy that
taught me much and improved my "eye" and skill, but ruined my chances at owning something more "useful" as I could not afford another digital camera after that
one. so anyway, I am very careful (even with the little things) these days when making an expensive purchase, to ensure I will not regret spending a little
more to get something more useful.

Understand. When you’re starting out these things weigh more heavily. For me the 350D is just an experiment. I’ll still be shooting lots of Velvia, Tri-X and so forth. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

don’t be so quick to judge the BW from digital. I thought that too. Once. In digital you shoot in color then later change to BW in PS. Much sharper than Tri x or Plus X. I printed on matte papers with and without color tones.Gorgeous amount of tone there. Plus you have the "neg" in color if you need it. For years we printed with nasty chemicals and hand retouched everything, people, especially in commercial situations are NOT willing to pay or wait for that kind of tedious labor.
As you see I am a huge fan of digital…the leap was nerve wracking for us too, but come on in the water is fine.

and I almost ignored this thread cause I thought it was about warming the skintones. And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 23:55:37 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

I think generally, the competition are trailing. If I like the 350D, then I shall be saving up for the 1Ds II.

Oh, I think you will. Hopefully your choice will be the 1Ds MKIII in reasonably short order, though.

But, I do need my cameras
light (I hardly use my 1 and 1n now) so I always have 1 light, 1 bomb proof for each system. So the 350D won’t be a waste.

Well, it’s hard to argue that. My 20D with battery handle, flash and that monster Sigma 70-00 is bloody heavy, and I’ve missed a few shots to hand shake when very tired with that setup.

I’m looking to get a P-n-S for a variety of reason, light being one of them.

My point and shoot is going to be my old 600 with the 50mm f1.4 (which should really have a red stripe <g>). If I go completely digital (except for B&W – I’ve never seen a digital B&W image with the quality of film) then the 350D will be the Pand s.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:17:24 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

AFAIK, you can pick any of the seven points. As I intend to use the facility to set the centre point as the only point anyway, it doesn’t really matter to me. 🙂

You’ll find uses for it. I often use one of the far-edge points when shooting a plate of food, so as to be able to frame plenty over the subject but have the plate in focus.

Understand. I may well come to do that, but, at the moment, I’m used to centre AF and follow focus techniques and I don’t want to get lazy (yes, I know that doesn’t apply to what you said, bit it’s the most likely use for me <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:46:38 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

My point and shoot is going to be my old 600 with the 50mm f1.4 (which should really have a red stripe <g>). If I go completely digital (except for B&W – I’ve never seen a digital B&W image with the quality of film) then the 350D will be the Pand s.

Well, some of the other reasons include having a reasonably decent hyperzoom ability (to keep from having to lug around or change lenses,) compose through lcd, and no shutter noise, to keep snotty rich folks from scowling at me at recitals and such.

Sorry, but I use hardly any zooms – most of my lenses are L primes.

IOW, all the things we give up for the SLR experience. I dunno if you’ve shot with a digital PnS before, but there are a number of nice things about them.

Yes. My partner has a Nikon 5700. The thing I most hate about it is the digital viewfinder. Other than that, it’s nice little camera with a good, reasonably fast lens. But I just can’t use it for any length of time because of the viewfinder.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:57:27 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

don’t be so quick to judge the BW from digital. I thought that too. Once. In digital you shoot in color then later change to BW in PS. Much sharper than Tri x or Plus X. I printed on matte papers with and without color tones.Gorgeous amount of tone there. Plus you have the "neg" in color if you need it. For years we printed with nasty chemicals and hand retouched everything, people, especially in commercial situations are NOT willing to pay or wait for that kind of tedious labor.

I see your point, but, whilst I’m sure you are right about that I hate not having the B&W grain. I know you can add noise, but it’s just not the same. What I do is scan in the B&W negs and go from there.

As you see I am a huge fan of digital…the leap was nerve wracking for us too, but come on in the water is fine.

<smile> I’m sure I’m going to enjoy, I’m, just not sure it’s suitable for *everything* 🙂

and I almost ignored this thread cause I thought it was about warming the skintones.

If I had a £ for every time a thread drifted I’d be able to afford a couple of 1Ds IIs and a 500mm f4.5L <g>

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:42:48 GMT, "Don"
wrote:

To be honest, if you could only get in silver I might have bought the 20D 😉

I know its not in the same class (or price) as the350 but what about the Panasonic FZ20 for a first digital camera (definitely non-pro use). I’m hoping the fairly decent zoom will compensate for somewhat lower resolution – my ‘action shots’ consist of my grandkids and wildlife in the Rockies.

From what I’ve read, and people have told me about the Panasonics, they’re probably the best thing you could buy short of a DSLR. The optics are superb and the camera itself is excellent.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:37:40 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

Velvia is gross, has a magenta shift, cannot push well, UGH. For humans it’s awful, hope you shoot plants.

Nature, landscape, architecture. 🙂

If shooting bipeds I use Portra 160. 🙂

Who uses film anymore except hobbyists. No AD/CD I know is willing to wait for film anymore or edit thousands of slides or pay for expensive scans? Especially when they can download the cards on the location site into their laptops and go home with a finished job the same day. And NO MORE film store & processing LAB Costs!!!Clients really love that part. And why do you want a heavy/big camera??

Wrong market. Fine Art uses a lot of film. And you don’t require anything more than a film scanner to get all the advantages of digital working with the advantages of film too.

In the real world as you all say, it’s a matter of what you are trying to accomplish.

Shooting artsy still lifes where you have hours to meditate on the lighting and the fruit sits still OK the 4×5 will make nice work. have you ever modeled for a large format photo? It’s tedious to the model and a lot of pressure to get it right in one frame.

As I say, it’s horses for courses. Most investors in fine art actually *expect* film. That will change, but I don’t see B&W dying out for a long while, if ever. Just look at the increase in vinyl sales despite CD and DVD.

We happened to have a huge investment in Canon lenses so our first foray into digital is the CANON. (10D) It IS different from shooting film as far as exposures and the way a CCD sees light is more like a vid camera. BUT for older eyes, sun baked eyes, GOD bless them for putting multiple auto focus points (so many times the center is just not where you want to focus) to capture humans who move and blink in unpredictable ways why wouldn’t you want a motor drive or ability to shoot multiple frames? AI mode sometimes works well sometimes not so well, the good part is you can check your focus on the spot and re-do if it looks bad.

Canon person too. IMHO, they’re the best around now – overtook Nikon a while back. However, 35mm is not always the solution either. 🙂

Bottom line is to know all the techniques old and new, use them where appropriate.

Yes, absolutely.

The digital also will require tripod more often with larger telephoto lenses. The newer lens have IS (stabilizing) built in like a vid camera and now I know why. Can’t wait to afford a new 70-280 and a 300 with IS.

Yes. My 300 IS L lens is great. I can’t wait to try it out on the 350D. What people seem to miss though (And why a tripod is important) is that the angle of view of the 300mm on that camera is the 480mm equivalent and using the old 1/focal length holding speed, with IS you need to aim at a 1/500 minimum shutter speed.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

KatWoman wrote:

don’t be so quick to judge the BW from digital. I thought that too. Once. In digital you shoot in color then later change to BW in PS. Much sharper than Tri x or Plus X. I printed on matte papers with and without color tones.Gorgeous amount of tone there. Plus you have the "neg" in color if you need it. For years we printed with nasty chemicals and hand retouched everything, people, especially in commercial situations are NOT willing to pay or wait for that kind of tedious labor.
As you see I am a huge fan of digital…the leap was nerve wracking for us too, but come on in the water is fine.

Especially because you can turn an inkject pprinter into a dedicated BW printer using quad tone inks

and I almost ignored this thread cause I thought it was about warming the skintones. And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women

Noooo!? Really?
😉

Stephan

KatWoman wrote:

Velvia is gross, has a magenta shift, cannot push well, UGH. For humans it’s awful, hope you shoot plants.

Right, the yukiest being people’s magenta ears

Who uses film anymore except hobbyists.

Watch out! Hecate does 😉

No AD/CD I know is willing to wait

for film anymore or edit thousands of slides or pay for expensive scans? Especially when they can download the cards on the location site into their laptops and go home with a finished job the same day. And NO MORE film store & processing LAB Costs!!!Clients really love that part. And why do you want a heavy/big camera??

Because sometimes a BIG camera makes you look PRO in the eyes of clients.They pay a lot, they want to see expensive gear (sometimes) I sometimes arrive on a job with a full case of camera gear and when I am alone I shot with my beloved Olympus CW8080. A good friend of mine shoots city portraits for some top magazine with his Canon G4, but if the mag sends a somebody along the poor guy has to carry his MarkII around.

snip

Stephan

Stephan wrote:

Especially because you can turn an inkject pprinter i

lol, good job spell check!

Stephan

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:57:27 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
I see your point, but, whilst I’m sure you are right about that I hate not having the B&W grain.

My feelings exactly. I freak out if I don’t find grain. For the grain-sniffing-compulsive-sharpness freaks, I can point to any number of examples where grain increases acutance. All this usenet optical-bench-racing be damned.

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:46:38 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

My point and shoot is going to be my old 600 with the 50mm f1.4 (which should really have a red stripe <g>). If I go completely digital (except for B&W – I’ve never seen a digital B&W image with the quality of film) then the 350D will be the Pand s.

Well, some of the other reasons include having a reasonably decent hyperzoom ability (to keep from having to lug around or change lenses,) compose through lcd, and no shutter noise, to keep snotty rich folks from scowling at me at recitals and such.

Sorry, but I use hardly any zooms – most of my lenses are L primes.

Doesn’t apply to a Point-N-Shoot. They are bodies of convenience, so interchangeable lenses aren’t desireable.

IOW, all the things we give up for the SLR experience. I dunno if you’ve shot with a digital PnS before, but there are a number of nice things about them.

Yes. My partner has a Nikon 5700. The thing I most hate about it is the digital viewfinder. Other than that, it’s nice little camera with a good, reasonably fast lens. But I just can’t use it for any length of time because of the viewfinder.

Good lord, woman – the twist lcd is a wonderful thing. Shoot from odd angles and compose perfectly. It’s great for candids – people don’t realize you’re shooting them.

Maybe the 5700 has something screwy about it, like very slow updates, but the Panasonic mentioned earlier doesn’t have that problem.

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:17:24 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

AFAIK, you can pick any of the seven points. As I intend to use the facility to set the centre point as the only point anyway, it doesn’t really matter to me. 🙂

You’ll find uses for it. I often use one of the far-edge points when shooting a plate of food, so as to be able to frame plenty over the subject but have the plate in focus.

Understand. I may well come to do that, but, at the moment, I’m used to centre AF and follow focus techniques and I don’t want to get lazy (yes, I know that doesn’t apply to what you said, bit it’s the most likely use for me <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hi Hecate,

I use one of the outer focus points all the time if I use my old EOS 10 (film). It lets you shoot portrait format (of a person) without having to continually focus in the centre and then recompse the shot before shooting. The shot is already composed with the focus point on the subjects eyes! Great placement, I say! It is surprising how many people focus with the centre focus bracket and forget to recompose. In a hurry, I guess it would be all too easy to focus as quickly as possible and press the shutter button. It looks terrible though, the subject’s eyes are dead centre of the frame and there is a huge gap above the subject’s head.

Regards,
Brian.

Eric Gill wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

That is fine, when the woman who likes women, is not your woman…LOL.

Trust me on that one.

Brian 🙂

"Brian" wrote in message

I use one of the outer focus points all the time if I use my old EOS 10 (film). It lets you shoot portrait format (of a person) without having to continually focus in the centre and then recompse

I find it absolutely astounding that these automatic-focusing things are harder to use than a manual focusing system.

<snip>

KatWoman wrote:

Who uses film anymore except hobbyists.

What is wrong with some of the people in this NG at times? You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulders, or a ‘professional’ complex. I am so sick of hearing this "hobbyist" bullshit. In fact, it seems to be used every time someone does something that does not agree with what the person with the complex does it. (if you don’t use Photoshop, if you don’t shoot digital, etc). If someone uses a different method to you,and quite possibly gets a better result than you do, or has more talent than you do, who is the hobbyist then?

I have seen work from "hobbyists" that pisses all over a lot of the so-called "professional" work being producted these days. Some people are passionate about something for sheer personal satisfaction and keep it aside from their "work". I would love to see some of the work from the so-called professionals who have this complex that keeps cropping up.

Get off your high horses and live in the real world with everyone else.

There you go, that’s my rant for the week. I will be good now. 🙂

Brian.

"jjs" wrote in
news::

"Brian" wrote in message

I use one of the outer focus points all the time if I use my old EOS 10 (film). It lets you shoot portrait format (of a person) without having to continually focus in the centre and then recompse

I find it absolutely astounding that these automatic-focusing things are harder to use than a manual focusing system.

They aren’t, don’t worry.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in
news::

"Brian" wrote in message

I use one of the outer focus points all the time if I use my old EOS 10 (film). It lets you shoot portrait format (of a person) without having to continually focus in the centre and then recompse

I find it absolutely astounding that these automatic-focusing things are harder to use than a manual focusing system.

They aren’t, don’t worry.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

I find it absolutely astounding that these automatic-focusing things are harder to use than a manual focusing system.

They aren’t, don’t worry.

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

"jjs" wrote in
news::

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

I find it absolutely astounding that these automatic-focusing things are harder to use than a manual focusing system.

They aren’t, don’t worry.

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I don’t own any poor lenses anymore, so…

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I have to use what’s given me, and the Olympus 8080w is just horrible compared to my 35mm SLRs – 35-year-old Nikon Fs.

"jjs" wrote in news:11779llc7v4aj74
@news.supernews.com:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I have to use what’s given me, and the Olympus 8080w is just horrible compared to my 35mm SLRs – 35-year-old Nikon Fs.

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

But we are talking about Canon dSLRs on this sub-thread, and not PnS bodies. A 20D with something like the 16-35L focuses almost instantaneously – much faster than I could by hand.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

Is the Olympus 8080 considered a P&S?

the reverse rant is that if you want to work and get paid you HAVE to be up with the times and sorry that does mean going all digital. The last few assignments I have received clients insisted on all digital files. I like getting money for my work and I can’t afford to lose assignments because I insist on film. It is not my place to argue for my techniques to a client that wants something else. They can just call the next guy on the list. Commercial photography is very competitive. People want stuff now, photographers are expected to know at least the basics of PS. Everything we do is not High art either, adverts go into the trash mostly, no one is hanging them on the wall, but it must be good, well lit and composed, requires attention to details etc.

If you are an accountant who prefers pen and pencils you may get work but most clients will NOT be impressed that you are so old fashioned, may not be able to share the data you create. Do you want a dentist that uses tools from when he graduated college in 1960 and has never updated his equipment or knowledge of new techniques?
I never dissed the quality of amateur or hobbyists, to the contrary someone who can spend time and care to create art type prints may indeed be the better artist (or not). It is NOT a matter of artistic integrity or talent, it is giving the customers what they want.

For years our studio made B&W archival prints hand colored and retouched, they got raves in the portfolio reviews BUT I never got one single client in 20 years who wanted that product for advertising work. Too long to make. They wanted color slides in 2 hours, and to do whatever "after-market" processes they felt were necessary to make it into what they wanted. No I don’t always love what they did to my photos but so what. For myself I continue to make what pleases me for my portfolio using new or old techniques, that is mine. But images I sold I have no control over what happens after they leave here.(other than copyright violations) That my friend is the "real world" the one that is paying and will no longer pay $300-500 per day for film and processing and then even more for scans to DIGITAL so they can use it. In this real world where all print shops are now using digital techniques all your precious film will end up as DIGITAL files anyway if it goes to print.

"Brian" wrote in message

<snip>

KatWoman wrote:

Who uses film anymore except hobbyists.

What is wrong with some of the people in this NG at times? You seem to have some sort of chip on your shoulders, or a ‘professional’ complex. I am so sick of hearing this "hobbyist" bullshit. In fact, it seems to be used every time someone does something that does not agree with what the person with the complex does it. (if you don’t use Photoshop, if you don’t shoot digital, etc). If someone uses a different method to you,and quite possibly gets a better result than you do, or has more talent than you do, who is the hobbyist then?

I have seen work from "hobbyists" that pisses all over a lot of the so-called "professional" work being producted these days. Some people are passionate about something for sheer personal satisfaction and keep it aside from their "work". I would love to see some of the work from the so-called professionals who have this complex that keeps cropping up.
Get off your high horses and live in the real world with everyone else.
There you go, that’s my rant for the week. I will be good now. 🙂
Brian.

"jjs" wrote in news:1177du7gnc48u50
@news.supernews.com:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

Is the Olympus 8080 considered a P&S?

Well, sure – both viewfinders are electronic, so no SLR mirror. Fixed lens, albeit a pretty good one.

That’s why there’s no mirror noise when you shoot.

"KatWoman" wrote in message

the reverse rant is that if you want to work and get paid you HAVE to be up with the times and sorry that does mean going all digital.

Yada, yada, yada. So you have digital-fanatic clients.

[…] Do you want a dentist that uses tools from when he graduated college in 1960 and has never updated his equipment or knowledge of new techniques?

WTF do you know about Dentistry? Come on, make my day and show me how pertinent that silly comparsison is. And make it a real comparison, not one based upon ignorant impressionism.

[…] It is NOT a matter of artistic integrity or talent, it is giving the customers what they want.

Sounds like a defense for the missionary position.

"Brian" wrote in message

Eric Gill wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

That is fine, when the woman who likes women, is not your woman…LOL.
Trust me on that one.

Brian 🙂

Or if you’re simply a voyeur.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:11:40 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"jjs" wrote in news:11779llc7v4aj74
@news.supernews.com:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I have to use what’s given me, and the Olympus 8080w is just horrible compared to my 35mm SLRs – 35-year-old Nikon Fs.

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

But we are talking about Canon dSLRs on this sub-thread, and not PnS bodies. A 20D with something like the 16-35L focuses almost instantaneously – much faster than I could by hand.

Got to go with you on that. AF plus my 300mm f4 L just does it. Of course, you do have to get the focus in the right place… 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:52:22 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

Is the Olympus 8080 considered a P&S?

Sort of. I’d consider it what used to be called a bridge camera – SLR style but with a fixed lens and more control than a pure P&S.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:49:22 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Yes. My partner has a Nikon 5700. The thing I most hate about it is the digital viewfinder. Other than that, it’s nice little camera with a good, reasonably fast lens. But I just can’t use it for any length of time because of the viewfinder.

Good lord, woman – the twist lcd is a wonderful thing. Shoot from odd angles and compose perfectly. It’s great for candids – people don’t realize you’re shooting them.

Maybe it’s just my eyes then, but I find it too dark and grainy compared to an optical finder.

OTOH, my partner loves it 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 20:11:04 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:57:27 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:
I see your point, but, whilst I’m sure you are right about that I hate not having the B&W grain.

My feelings exactly. I freak out if I don’t find grain. For the grain-sniffing-compulsive-sharpness freaks, I can point to any number of examples where grain increases acutance. All this usenet optical-bench-racing be damned.

LOL! Yeah, you go! Nice to find another "traditionalist" 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:51:21 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:57:53 -0400, "Scrufff" wrote:

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

That is fine, when the woman who likes women, is not your woman…LOL.
Trust me on that one.

Brian 🙂

Or if you’re simply a voyeur.

Boys, boys, now settle down… 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Brian do you make a living from only photography? are you an expert? a pro? my clients aren’t fanatical about anything they merely want things cheaper and faster. If you haven’t noticed things are tight out here, savings of $300-500 per day on job taking 7-8 days is not chump change.

dentist thing it’s an analogy. The point is I don’t want to know HOW to be a dentist, just want to go to one who has modern equipment and new techniques at his disposal, so I don’t have to be an expert in dentistry to select a dentist. DUH.

I don’t need to defend anything. In business if you want customers to buy things from you it is better to have what they want to buy. How much of your "fine photo" work on film have you sold? How many years have you made a living from it.

Yes changing what worked for 22 years was not all pleasant. Of course we could/can still shoot film. Can you do both techniques equally well? can you get good results with both. We can. Why are you so defensive about using digital? Afraid of it?

and PS I would defend the missionary position too, it’s comfortable and gets you off good, of course if that’s all you do well, what a bore.

"jjs" wrote in message

"KatWoman" wrote in message

the reverse rant is that if you want to work and get paid you HAVE to be up with the times and sorry that does mean going all digital.

Yada, yada, yada. So you have digital-fanatic clients.

[…] Do you want a dentist that uses tools from when he graduated college in 1960 and has never updated his equipment or knowledge of new techniques?

WTF do you know about Dentistry? Come on, make my day and show me how pertinent that silly comparsison is. And make it a real comparison, not one based upon ignorant impressionism.

[…] It is NOT a matter of artistic integrity or talent, it is giving the customers what they want.

Sounds like a defense for the missionary position.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:51:21 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Well that’s a no brainer. Angelina Jolie.

"Scrufff" wrote in news:38d3$427402a0$42a1c004$:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:51:21 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Well that’s a no brainer. Angelina Jolie.

And my wife would agree whole-heartedly.

Brian wrote in news::

Eric Gill wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

That is fine, when the woman who likes women, is not your woman…LOL.

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/tori-amos/raspberry-swirl.html

Trust me on that one.

If you can’t stand the heat…

Brian 🙂

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:51:21 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

And I found out Hecate is a woman who likes women.

Yes, I do. Quite a few of the guys round here like women too apparently 😉

And women who like women especially.

More value for your money, as it were. And a common interest.

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Yep. Alas, I’ve lost interest in most modern pop culture icons. "Vapid and sexy" has been done well…in the past. Now it’s more like "Sexy and Stupid, but Wants Everyone to Pretend They Have Brains and Talent."

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:34:11 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

the reverse rant is that if you want to work and get paid you HAVE to be up with the times and sorry that does mean going all digital.

Sorry, but that’s inaccurate. People do ask more and more for digital files, but that doesn’t require a digital camera.

The last few
assignments I have received clients insisted on all digital files. I like getting money for my work and I can’t afford to lose assignments because I insist on film. It is not my place to argue for my techniques to a client that wants something else. They can just call the next guy on the list. Commercial photography is very competitive. People want stuff now, photographers are expected to know at least the basics of PS. Everything we do is not High art either, adverts go into the trash mostly, no one is hanging them on the wall, but it must be good, well lit and composed, requires attention to details etc.

That’s true of a lot of commercial photography, but it depends on what area of the market you aim to cover.

For years our studio made B&W archival prints hand colored and retouched, they got raves in the portfolio reviews BUT I never got one single client in 20 years who wanted that product for advertising work. Too long to make. They wanted color slides in 2 hours, and to do whatever "after-market" processes they felt were necessary to make it into what they wanted. No I don’t always love what they did to my photos but so what.

Yes. Today’s advert is tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper. 🙂

For myself I
continue to make what pleases me for my portfolio using new or old techniques, that is mine. But images I sold I have no control over what happens after they leave here.(other than copyright violations) That my friend is the "real world" the one that is paying and will no longer pay $300-500 per day for film and processing and then even more for scans to DIGITAL so they can use it. In this real world where all print shops are now using digital techniques all your precious film will end up as DIGITAL files anyway if it goes to print.

Not in all markets. Certainly in advertising.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 11:52:22 -0500, "jjs"

Is the Olympus 8080 considered a P&S?

Sort of. I’d consider it what used to be called a bridge camera – SLR style but with a fixed lens and more control than a pure P&S.

Thanks for that, Hecate. I can go with that.’

This part of the thread is becoming tiresome. All heterosexual men are lesbians… in the humorous sense. It is not enough to be sexually attracted to women to be sympathetic because men do not live the experience of being a woman. Let us leave it alone, and move on with respect. Leave Womens’ affairs to the experts: Women. Peace.

bridge camera was a Minolta Dimage 7, now use it as a point and shoot. Had some nice "pro" features but a fixed lens. even used it with a flash adapter and the Speedotrons in the studio before we got the Canon.

Hec-Do you find you must use the tripod with the longer lenses more often than when shooting film?
(300 lens stops down to 2.8)
The focusing seems more picky in digital than film in general. Used to be able to do some handheld shots with the 300mm.
I think you will get better results using the variable focusing points over the center focus.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 16:11:40 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"jjs" wrote in news:11779llc7v4aj74
@news.supernews.com:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I have to use what’s given me, and the Olympus 8080w is just horrible compared to my 35mm SLRs – 35-year-old Nikon Fs.

*All* Point-and-Shoot digital bodies can be described as "slow and tedious" compared to dSLRS, or any SLR, for that matter. In pretty much everything they do.

But we are talking about Canon dSLRs on this sub-thread, and not PnS bodies. A 20D with something like the 16-35L focuses almost instantaneously
– much faster than I could by hand.

Got to go with you on that. AF plus my 300mm f4 L just does it. Of course, you do have to get the focus in the right place… 😉
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Sorry, but that’s inaccurate. People do ask more and more for digital

files, but that doesn’t require a digital camera.

so who pays for the scans, you? the client? if so your bid might be high enough over the next guy who does use digital to lose the job. (I did like that extra 15% I made on film and processing)

and I believe I already said

all your precious film will end up as DIGITAL files

anyway if it goes to print.

the market we are in is advertising & catalog
I am excited to be able to wirelessly transmit my photo and have it approved or dropped immediately into a layout as we are still shooting, even when the client is miles away in another country. I never figured I would find so much to like about digital, but the immediacy of it brings a certain excitement back to an old gig

I would never diss anyone who loves film. I loved and love film and the cameras that made them. I do not really miss, soupy, smelly chemicals and hand etching silver off prints, Dr.Martin’s messy dyes and spotting brushes. But I do love the prints they created.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:34:11 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

the reverse rant is that if you want to work and get paid you HAVE to be up
with the times and sorry that does mean going all digital.

Sorry, but that’s inaccurate. People do ask more and more for digital files, but that doesn’t require a digital camera.

The last few
assignments I have received clients insisted on all digital files. I like getting money for my work and I can’t afford to lose assignments because I insist on film. It is not my place to argue for my techniques to a client that wants something else. They can just call the next guy on the list. Commercial photography is very competitive. People want stuff now, photographers are expected to know at least the basics of PS. Everything we
do is not High art either, adverts go into the trash mostly, no one is hanging them on the wall, but it must be good, well lit and composed, requires attention to details etc.

That’s true of a lot of commercial photography, but it depends on what area of the market you aim to cover.

For years our studio made B&W archival prints hand colored and retouched, they got raves in the portfolio reviews BUT I never got one single client in
20 years who wanted that product for advertising work. Too long to make. They wanted color slides in 2 hours, and to do whatever "after-market" processes they felt were necessary to make it into what they wanted. No I don’t always love what they did to my photos but so what.

Yes. Today’s advert is tomorrow’s fish and chip wrapper. 🙂

For myself I
continue to make what pleases me for my portfolio using new or old techniques, that is mine. But images I sold I have no control over what happens after they leave here.(other than copyright violations) That my friend is the "real world" the one that is paying and will no longer pay $300-500 per day for film and processing and then even more for scans to DIGITAL so they can use it. In this real world where all print shops are now
using digital techniques all your precious film will end up as DIGITAL files
anyway if it goes to print.

Not in all markets. Certainly in advertising.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Brian wrote:

<snip>

KatWoman wrote:

Who uses film anymore except hobbyists.

What is wrong with some of the people in this NG at times?

I don’t know, what is your problem right now? And why do you reply to me? Or is it my newsreader sticking your reply under my post? Anyway, Katwoman is mostly right and you seem to have had a bad day!

You seem to

have some sort of chip on your shoulders, or a ‘professional’ complex. I am so sick of hearing this "hobbyist" bullshit. In fact, it seems to be used every time someone does something that does not agree with what the person with the complex does it. (if you don’t use Photoshop, if you don’t shoot digital, etc). If someone uses a different method to you,and quite possibly gets a better result than you do, or has more talent than you do, who is the hobbyist then?

I have seen work from "hobbyists" that pisses all over a lot of the so-called "professional" work being producted these days. Some people are passionate about something for sheer personal satisfaction and keep it aside from their "work". I would love to see some of the work from the so-called professionals who have this complex that keeps cropping up.
Get off your high horses and live in the real world with everyone else.
There you go, that’s my rant for the week. I will be good now. :-

Brian.

jjs wrote:

All heterosexual men are lesbians…

Quote of the day!!!

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:25:22 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

bridge camera was a Minolta Dimage 7, now use it as a point and shoot. Had some nice "pro" features but a fixed lens. even used it with a flash adapter and the Speedotrons in the studio before we got the Canon.

Interesting 🙂

Hec-Do you find you must use the tripod with the longer lenses more often than when shooting film?
(300 lens stops down to 2.8)
The focusing seems more picky in digital than film in general. Used to be able to do some handheld shots with the 300mm.
I think you will get better results using the variable focusing points over the center focus.

Haven’t had much chance to try, but I would assume that would be the case. For instance, the 300mm on the 350D is a 480mm "equivalent" so you’re going to get exactly the same problems as if a 480mm was fitted. Leaving aside the IS, you need a 1/500 minimum speed and because the angle of view is narrower than it’s native angle of view (i.e. 480 angle of view to 300 angle of view) focusing will be that much more critical.

After what you and Eric have said, I will try the variable focusing points (once I’ve got use to the camera). It’s just that I’m used:

See bird, focus birds eye, recompose, shoot

as a method of working. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:15:13 -0400, "Scrufff" wrote:

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Well that’s a no brainer. Angelina Jolie.

mmmmm.. Yes! Yes! Yes!

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 23:03:38 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Yep. Alas, I’ve lost interest in most modern pop culture icons. "Vapid and sexy" has been done well…in the past. Now it’s more like "Sexy and Stupid, but Wants Everyone to Pretend They Have Brains and Talent."

Very true. Most of the women I find hot tend to be older 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:44:06 -0500, "jjs"
wrote:

This part of the thread is becoming tiresome. All heterosexual men are lesbians… in the humorous sense. It is not enough to be sexually attracted to women to be sympathetic because men do not live the experience of being a woman. Let us leave it alone, and move on with respect. Leave Womens’ affairs to the experts: Women. Peace.

<g> I never find talking about women tiresome, but there you go…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:43:32 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

Sorry, but that’s inaccurate. People do ask more and more for digital

files, but that doesn’t require a digital camera.

so who pays for the scans, you? the client? if so your bid might be high enough over the next guy who does use digital to lose the job. (I did like that extra 15% I made on film and processing)

Me. But for my market, quality is way more important than quality so, eventually, the person who buys the image pays for it.

and I believe I already said

all your precious film will end up as DIGITAL files

anyway if it goes to print.

the market we are in is advertising & catalog
I am excited to be able to wirelessly transmit my photo and have it approved or dropped immediately into a layout as we are still shooting, even when the client is miles away in another country. I never figured I would find so much to like about digital, but the immediacy of it brings a certain excitement back to an old gig

And for your area, digital is absolutely the right thing. The point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t the same across the board 🙂

I would never diss anyone who loves film. I loved and love film and the cameras that made them. I do not really miss, soupy, smelly chemicals and hand etching silver off prints, Dr.Martin’s messy dyes and spotting brushes. But I do love the prints they created.

I don’t miss the chemicals either. All my film goes to a developer, who does a good job and follows instructions well. Everything else is "digital darkroom". 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

jjs wrote:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"jjs" wrote in

For other than fast moving object, I find the so-called autofocus tedious, slow and inaccurate.

With poor lenses, so do I.

I have to use what’s given me, and the Olympus 8080w is just horrible compared to my 35mm SLRs – 35-year-old Nikon Fs.

Since I bought the CW8080 my Nikons and lenses are retired. It is a wonderful tool. It costs almost nothing and generates money, I’ll love it.

Stephan

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:15:13 -0400, "Scrufff" wrote:

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Well that’s a no brainer. Angelina Jolie.

mmmmm.. Yes! Yes! Yes!

Tss, what about Kate Bekinsdale in the silly "Underground" movie? And she’s British so she’s even cuter when she speaks (unlike most American actresses)

Stephan

:

jjs wrote:

All heterosexual men are lesbians…

Quote of the day!!!

But not very true, I’m afraid. For example, a popular joke is that a lesbian second date is defined as "showing up with a U-Haul."

Liking women is about the only thing in common. How that’s handled is generally pretty different.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:58:06 GMT, "Michael Canavle" wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

colorize.

—
more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Tue, 03 May 2005 06:06:02 GMT, Stephan wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:15:13 -0400, "Scrufff" wrote:

LOL! Absolutely – I’m always talking to male friends about which of the latest movie "stars" is the hottest 😉

Well that’s a no brainer. Angelina Jolie.

mmmmm.. Yes! Yes! Yes!

Tss, what about Kate Bekinsdale in the silly "Underground" movie? And she’s British so she’s even cuter when she speaks (unlike most American actresses)

Kate’s nice, but I prefer Helen Mirren. 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

Kate’s nice, but I prefer Helen Mirren. 🙂

Great! We’ll never fight over the same girl you and me 😉

is this like the longest thread ever? or what?
I looked up Hecate to find the meaning of your nick, very cool. Does this mean you can make magic with PS?

I am hetero but if I were gay I would have a crush on Ivan from L-word.

"Stephan" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

Kate’s nice, but I prefer Helen Mirren. 🙂

Great! We’ll never fight over the same girl you and me 😉

Michael Canavle wrote:

I have a pic in which a friend of mine is wearing a bikini. She’s not happy with how white she appears though. Is there any way to make her appear more tan in the picture? if so, what’s the best way to do it? thanks for any help you can provide.

Hey, don’t stop with just the tan…

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/UberBabes/

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 00:27:12 +0100, Hecate
wrote:

I prefer light cameras

So do I. Scanning electron micrography is a little pricey still. ;->

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQoe2FQIk7T39FC4ZEQIgLQCgsGsHuepMYDIEoOaC/l06lI9TJW0A oIht e/OuaUmU1pqAWWh8JUAP/5Ej
=+Zau
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

—
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info